Evidence Hub

Milestones in Mandibular Bone Tissue Engineering: A Systematic Review of Large Animal Models and Critical-Sized Defects

Y. M. Sillmann, P. Eber, E. Orbeta, Frank Wilde, Andrew J. Gross, F. Guastaldi

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025

23 citations

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Mandibular reconstruction following trauma or oncologic resection is crucial for restoring function and aesthetics. While autologous bone grafting remains the gold standard, it presents challenges such as donor site morbidity and graft availability. Bone tissue engineering (BTE) offers an innovative alternative, integrating scaffolds, osteogenic cells, and bioactive factors to regenerate functional bone. This systematic review evaluates BTE strategies for mandibular reconstruction, focusing on critical-sized defects in large animal models and their translational potential for clinical applications. Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies involved large animal models and critical-sized mandibular defects treated with at least two BTE components (scaffold, osteogenic cells, or growth factors). Quality and bias assessments were conducted using ARRIVE guidelines and SYRCLE tools. Results: Of the 6088 studies screened, 27 met the inclusion criteria, focusing on critical-sized mandibular defects in large animal models such as pigs, sheep, and dogs. Common scaffolds included β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA), and polycaprolactone (PCL), frequently combined with bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) and growth factors like recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Preclinical outcomes demonstrated effective bone regeneration, vascularization, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free