Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025
Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
Published on: November 16, 2018
Patients ' perspectives on bone replacement materials in a German university hospital setting
Ana Prates Soares1,2, Heilwig Fischer3,4,5, Vincenzo Orassi6
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. ana.prates-soares@charite.de.
Background:
The challenges in developing new bone replacement materials and procedures reside not solely in technological innovation and advancement, but also in a broader patient therapy acceptance. Therefore, there is a need to assess patients' perspectives on the materials and approaches in use as well as the ones being developed to better steer future progress in the field.
Methods:
A self-initiating cross-sectional questionnaire aimed at people seeking treatment at the university hospital environment of Charité Berlin was formulated. The survey contained 15 close-ended questions directed toward the participant's epidemiological profile, willingness, acceptance, and agreement to receive different bone replacement materials, as well as, worries about the post-surgical consequences that can arise post bone replacement surgery. Descriptive and categorical analysis was performed to compare the observed number of subjects, their profile and each related response (Pearson's chi-square test or Fischer's test, p < 0.05).
Results:
A total of 198 people engaged with the questionnaire, most of them Millennials. Overall patients trusted scientifically developed biomaterials designed for bone replacement, as demonstrated by their willingness to participate in a clinical trial, their acceptance of alloplastic materials, and the none/few worries about the presence of permanent implants. The data revealed the preferences of patients towards autologous sources of cells and blood to be used with a biomaterial. The data have also shown that both generation and education influenced willingness to participate in a clinical trial and acceptance of alloplastic materials, as well as, worries about the presence of permanent implants and agreement to receive a material with pooled blood and cells.
Conclusion:
Patients were open to the implantation of biomaterials for bone replacement, with a preference toward autologous sources of blood and/or tissue. Moreover, patients are concerned about strategies based on permanent implants, which indicates a need for resorbable materials. The knowledge gained in this study supports the development of new bone biomaterials.
