Skip to main content
Log in

Progressing innovation in biomaterials. From the bench to the bed of patients

  • Special Issue: ESB 2014
  • Clinical Applications of Biomaterials
  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A Translational Research Symposium was organized at the 2014 annual meeting of the European society for biomaterials. This brought together leading Tier one companies in clinical biomaterials and medical device markets, small and medium enterprises and entrepreneurial academics who shared their experiences on taking biomaterials technologies to commercial endpoints, in the clinics. The symposium focused on “Progressing Innovation in Biomaterials. From the Bench to the Bed of Patients”. The aim of the present document is to illustrate the content of the symposium and to highlight the key lessons from selected lectures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dees JG. The meaning of social entrepreneurship. 1998. http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/the-meaning-social-entrepreneurship%20.

  2. Saver JL, Jahan R, Levy EI, Jovin TG, Baxter B, Nogueira RG, et al. Solitaire flow restoration device versus the merci retriever in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (SWIFT): a randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9849):1241–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Larsson S, Procter P. Optimising implant anchorage (augmentation) during fixation of osteoporotic fractures: is there a role for bone-graft substitutes? Injury. 2011;42:S72–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Namdari S, Rabinovich R, Scolaro J, Baldwin K, Bhandari M, Mehta S. Absorbable and non-absorbable cement augmentation in fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures: systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(4):487–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bajammal SS, Zlowodzki M, Lelwica A, Tornetta P, Einhorn TA, Buckley R, et al. The use of calcium phosphate bone cement in fracture treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90A(6):1186–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kurien T, Pearson RG, Scammell BE. Bone graft substitutes currently available in orthopaedic practice The evidence for their use. Bone Joint J. 2013;95B(5):583–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fu RW, Selph S, McDonagh M, Peterson K, Tiwari A, Chou R, et al. Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(12):890–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hannink G, Wolke JGC, Schreurs BW, Buma P. In vivo behavior of a novel injectable calcium phosphate cement compared with two other commercially available calcium phosphate cements. J Biomed Mater Res B. 2008;85B(2):478–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Richards RG. Institute Davos within the AO foundation: a model for translation of science to the clinics. J Orthop Transl. 2013;1:11–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lysaght MJ, Hazlehurst AL. Tissue engineering: the end of the beginning. Tissue Eng. 2004;10(1–2):309–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Meinig RP, Buesing CM, Helm J, Gogolewski S. Regeneration of diaphyseal bone defects using resorbable poly(l/dl-lactide) and poly(d-lactide) membranes in the Yucatan pig model. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11(8):551–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Meinig RP, Rahn B, Perren SM, Gogolewski S. Bone regeneration with resorbable polymeric membranes: treatment of diaphyseal bone defects in the rabbit radius with poly(l-lactide) membrane. A pilot study. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(3):178–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Castillo-Dali GV-CR, Serrera-Figallo MA, Rodriguez-Gonzalez-Elipe A, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Torres-Lagares D. Importance of PLGA in Scaffolds for guided bone regeneration: a focused review. J Oral Implantol. 2014. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00225).

  14. Webber MJ, Khan OF, Sydlik SA, Tang BC, Langer R. A perspective on the clinical translation of Scaffolds for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;. doi:10.1007/s10439-014-1104-7).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hollister SJ, Murphy WL. Scaffold translation: barriers between concept and clinic. Tissue Eng B. 2011;17(6):459–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Madry H, Alini M, Stoddart MJ, Evans C, Miclau T, Steiner S. Barriers and strategies for the clinical translation of advanced orthopaedic tissue engineering protocols. Eur Cells Mater. 2014;27:17–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Bayon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bayon, Y., Bohner, M., Eglin, D. et al. Progressing innovation in biomaterials. From the bench to the bed of patients. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 26, 228 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-015-5562-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-015-5562-8

Keywords

Navigation