Biocompatibility and in vivo osteogenic capability of novel bone tissue engineering scaffold A-W-MGC/CS

Glass-ceramics for cancer treatment: So close, or yet so far?

After years of research on the ability of glass-ceramics in bone regeneration, this family of biomaterials has shown revolutionary potentials in a couple of emerging applications such as cancer treatment. Although glass-ceramics have not yet reached their actual potential in cancer therapy, the relevant research activity is significantly growing in this field. It has been projected that this idea and the advent of magnetic bioactive glass-ceramics and mesoporous bioactive glasses could result in major future developments in the field of cancer. Undoubtedly, this strategy needs further developments to better answer the critical questions essential for clinical usage. This review aims to address the existing research developments on glass-ceramics for cancer treatment, starting with the current status and moving to future advances. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Although glass-ceramics have not yet reached their potential in cancer therapy, research activity is significantly growing. It has been speculated that this idea and the advent of modern glass-ceramics could result in significant future advances. Undoubtedly, this strategy needs further investigations and many critical questions have to be answered before it can be successfully applied for cancer treatment. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, starting with current products and moving onto recent developments in this field. According to our knowledge, there is a lack of a systematic review on the importance and developments of magnetic bioactive glass-ceramics and mesoporous bioactive glasses for cancer treatment, and it is expected that this review will be of interest to those working in this area.

Calcium silicate as a graft material for bone fractures: a systematic review

Objective

The goal of this review was to determine whether calcium silicate (wollastonite) as a bone graft material is a viable alternative to autogenous bone or whether the evidence base for its use is weak.

Methods

In this systematic review, electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed and BVS) were searched for relevant articles in indexed journals. Articles published in a 10-year period were identified (n = 48). After initial selection, 17 articles were assessed for eligibility; subsequently, seven articles were excluded and 10 articles were included.

Results

Among the studies included, 20% emphasized the importance of randomization, which adds reliability to the study, minimizing the risk of bias. High variability was observed in the material used, such as additives, amounts, dosage, and chemical alterations, rendering direct comparison among these studies impossible. The experimental periods varied considerably; one of the studies did not include statistical analysis, weakening the evaluation. Nonetheless, the true potential of wollastonite as a graft material conducive to new bone formation was reported in all studies.

Conclusion

The results support the use of wollastonite as a bone graft material. The initial research question was answered despite the significant variability observed among these preclinical studies, which hindered the precision of this analysis.