Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Analysis of Serum IgG1 to Predict Progression and Therapeutic Effect in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

Journal of oncology·2022
Same author

Understory biomass measurement in a dense plantation forest based on drone-SfM data by a manual low-flying drone under the canopy.

Journal of environmental management·2022
Same author

Long-term maternal intake of inulin exacerbated the intestinal damage and inflammation of offspring rats in a DSS-induced colitis model.

Food & function·2022
Same author

Direct imaging of the disconnection climb mediated point defects absorption by a grain boundary.

Nature communications·2022
Same author

Glomus tumors around or in the knee: a case report and literature review.

BMC surgery·2022
Same author

Protein FT-IR amide bands are beneficial to bacterial typing.

International journal of biological macromolecules·2022

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 11, 2025

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
10:28

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration

Published on: November 16, 2018

13.1K

Biological evaluation of bone substitute.

Yingjie Wang1, Yanyan Bian1, Lizhi Zhou1

  • 1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.

Clinica Chimica Acta; International Journal of Clinical Chemistry
|August 18, 2020
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This review details methods for evaluating bone repair materials (BRMs) that promote bone growth and blood vessel formation. It aids researchers in assessing BRMs for critical-sized defects, focusing on osteogenesis and angiogenesis.

Keywords:
AngiogenesisBiosafetyBone repair materialsCell cultureExperimental animalOsteogenesis

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research
07:29

Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research

Published on: September 27, 2024

1.1K
Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
08:41

Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials

Published on: August 13, 2019

8.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 11, 2025

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
10:28

Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration

Published on: November 16, 2018

13.1K
Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research
07:29

Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research

Published on: September 27, 2024

1.1K
Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
08:41

Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials

Published on: August 13, 2019

8.7K

Area of Science:

  • Biomaterials Science
  • Regenerative Medicine
  • Orthopedic Research

Background:

  • Critical-sized defects (CSDs) necessitate advanced bone repair materials (BRMs) for effective regeneration.
  • BRMs must support both osteogenesis (bone formation) and angiogenesis (blood vessel development).
  • Current in vitro and in vivo models for evaluating angiogenesis in BRMs are underdeveloped.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide a comprehensive overview of methods for evaluating BRMs.
  • To focus on assessing BRMs' effects on osteogenic and osteolytic cells, and angiogenesis.
  • To guide researchers in evaluating BRM biocompatibility and biological performance.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature on BRM evaluation techniques.
  • Analysis of methods assessing osteogenesis and osteolytic activity.
  • Examination of in vitro and in vivo models for angiogenesis assessment.

Main Results:

  • A gap exists in standardized methods for evaluating angiogenesis in BRMs.
  • Existing methods effectively assess osteogenic and osteolytic cellular responses.
  • Biocompatibility and overall biological performance are crucial metrics for BRMs.

Conclusions:

  • Standardized methods are needed to comprehensively evaluate BRMs, particularly their angiogenic potential.
  • This review offers a framework for assessing BRMs, facilitating the development of novel bone regenerative therapies.
  • Further research into angiogenesis promotion by BRMs is essential for improving bone repair strategies.