Bone tissue has the capability to regenerate itself; however, defects of a critical size prevent the bone from regenerating and require additional support. To aid regeneration, bone scaffolds created out of autologous or allograft bone can be used, yet these produce problems such as fast degradation rates, reduced bioactivity, donor site morbidity or the risk of pathogen transmission. The development of bone tissue engineering has been used to create functional alternatives to regenerate bone. This can be achieved by producing bone tissue scaffolds that induce osteoconduction and integration, provide mechanical stability, and either integrate into the bone structure or degrade and are excreted by the body. A range of different biomaterials have been used to this end, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. This review will introduce the requirements of bone tissue engineering, beginning with the regeneration process of bone before exploring the requirements of bone tissue scaffolds. Aspects covered include the manufacturing process as well as the different materials used and the incorporation of bioactive molecules, growth factors and cells.

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is a common procedure used to rebuild dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge that occur after extraction. In GBR, membranes are used to separate the bone defect from the underlying soft tissue. To overcome the shortcomings of commonly used membranes in GBR, a new resorbable magnesium membrane has been developed. A literature search was performed via MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed in February 2023 for research on magnesium barrier membranes. Of the 78 records reviewed, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. In addition, this paper reports two cases where GBR was performed using a magnesium membrane and magnesium fixation system with immediate and delayed implant placement. No adverse reactions to the biomaterials were detected, and the membrane was completely resorbed after healing. The resorbable fixation screws used in both cases held the membranes in place during bone formation and were completely resorbed. Therefore, the pure magnesium membrane and magnesium fixation screws were found to be excellent biomaterials for GBR, which supports the findings of the literature review.

This study is the first histologic evaluation of an injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (IBCP) in humans six months after socket preservation according to the principles of guided bone regeneration. After tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge of 21 patients was augmented with IBCP (maxresorb^® inject) in the test group, while 20 patients in the control group received a bovine xenograft (BX) (cerabone^®). Six months after augmentation, a reentry procedure was performed to collect biopsies of regenerated bone for qualitative and quantitative histologic analysis. A total of 20 biopsies were taken for analysis. Qualitative histologic analysis showed complete integration of the biomaterial and no inflammatory tissue reaction, indicating the biocompatibility of the bone grafts and the surrounding tissue in both groups. Histomorphometric analysis showed comparable results in terms of newly formed bone (IBCP: 26.47 ± 14.71%, BX: 30.47 ± 16.39%) and residual biomaterial (IBCP: 13.1 ± 14.07%, BX: 17.89 ± 11.81%), with no significant difference found across groups (p > 0.05, Mann—Whitney U test). Statistical significance between groups was found in the result of soft tissue percentage (IBCP: 60.43 ± 12.73%, BX: 51.64 ± 14.63%, p = 0.046, Mann—Whitney U test). To conclude, IBCP and BX showed good osteoconductivity and biocompatibility with comparable new bone formation six months after alveolar ridge preservation.

This prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial reports clinical, radiographic, histologic and immunohistochemical results of autologous dentin graft (ADG) and its comparison with a mixture of bovine xenograft with autologous bone (BX+AB). After tooth extraction in the esthetic zone of maxilla, the alveolar ridge of 20 patients in the test group was augmented with ADG, while 17 patients in the control group received the combination of BX+AB. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed before tooth extraction and after 4 months when a total of 22 bone biopsies were harvested and subjected to histological and immunohistochemical analysis. Radiological analysis showed comparable results of bone dimension loss in both groups. Quantitative histologic analysis showed comparable results with no statistically significant differences between the groups. Immunohistochemical staining with TNF-α and BMP-4 antibodies revealed immunopositivity in both groups. A statistically significant difference between the groups was found in the intensity of TNF-α in the area of newly formed bone (p = 0.0003) and around remaining biomaterial particles (p = 0.0027), and in the intensity of BMP-4 in the area around biomaterial particles (p = 0.0001). Overall, ADG showed biocompatibility and achieved successful bone regeneration in the esthetic zone of the maxilla similar to BX+AB.

Following trauma, chronic periapical process, or tooth extraction, a large loss of bone volume is noticed during the healing process. To facilitate the placement of dental implants, various surgical procedures are used for an optimal alveolar ridge profile, while maintaining adequate bone dimensions. The main aim of this study was to determine the healing ability (histologically and immunohistologically) of alveolar bone defects during augmentation with two different biomaterials: injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and anorganic bovine bone (ABB). Thirty-eight subjects were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received the tested bone substitute biomaterial (BSB), i.e., BCP (maxresorb inject^®), and the second group received an alternative to the gold standard, i.e., ABB (Bio-Oss^®). The histopathological, histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical analyses gave comparable results for these bone substitute materials in terms of newly formed bone: (BCP: 39.91 ± 8.49%, ABB: 41.73 ± 13.99%), residual biomaterial (BCP: 28.61 ± 11.38%, ABB: 31.72 ± 15.52%), and soft tissue (BCP: 31.49 ± 11.09%, ABB: 26.54 ± 7.25%), with no significant difference found between the groups (p < 0.05, t-test), proving that BCP is equally suitable and successful for alveolar bone regeneration.

After tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge undergoes dimensional changes. Different bone regeneration biomaterials are used to reduce bone loss. The aim of this article was to systematically review the literature on the effect of injectable synthetic biomaterials and their advantages and disadvantages for new bone formation in the maxilla and mandible in animals and humans. A literature search was conducted in November 2020 via MEDLINE PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Of the 501 records screened, abstract analysis was performed on 49 articles, resulting in 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Animal studies have shown heterogeneity in terms of animal models, follow-up time, composition of the injectable biomaterial, and different outcome variables such as bone–implant contact, newly formed bone, and peri-implant bone density. Heterogeneity has also been demonstrated by human studies. The following outcomes were observed: newly formed bone, connective tissue, residual injectable bone graft substitute, radiographic density, residual bone height, and different follow-up periods. Further studies, especially in humans, based on the histological and biomechanical properties of the injectable delivery form, are needed to draw more concrete conclusions that will contribute to a better understanding of the benefits of this type of biomaterials and their role in bone regeneration.