Evaluation criteria for musculoskeletal and craniofacial tissue engineering constructs: A conference report

David L. Butler, Jack L. Lewis, Cyril B. Frank, Albert J. Banes, Arnold I. Caplan, Patrick G. De Deyne, Mary Ann Dowling, Braden C. Fleming, Julie Glowacki, Robert E. Guldberg, Brian Johnstone, David L. Kaplan, Marc E. Levenston, Jeffrey C. Lotz, Yiling Lu Ed, Nadya Lumelsky, Jeremy J. Mao, Robert L. Mauck, Cahir A. McDevitt, Lito C. MejiaMartha Murray, Anthony Ratcliffe, Kurt P. Spindler, Scott Tashman, Christopher T. Wagner, Elijah M. Weisberg, Chrysanthi Williams, Renwen Zhang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

30 Scopus citations


Over the past 20 years, tissue engineering (TE) has evolved into a thriving research and commercial development field. However, applying TE strategies to musculoskeletal (MSK) and craniofacial tissues has been particularly challenging since these tissues must also transmit loads during activities of daily living. To address this need, organizers invited a small group of bioengineers, surgeons, biologists, and material scientists from academia, industry, and government to participate in a 21/2-day conference to develop general and tissue-specific criteria for evaluating new concepts and tissue-engineered constructs, including threshold values of success. Participants were assigned to four breakout groups representing commonly injured tissues, including tendon and ligament, articular cartilage, meniscus and temporomandibular joint, and bone and intervertebral disc. Working in multidisciplinary teams, participants first carefully defined one or two important unmet clinical needs for each tissue type, including current standards of care and the potential impact of TE solutions. The groups then sought to identify important parameters for evaluating repair outcomes in preclinical studies and to specify minimally acceptable values for these parameters. The importance of in vitro TE studies was then discussed in the context of these preclinical studies. Where data were not currently available from clinical, preclinical, or culture studies, the groups sought to identify important areas of preclinical research needed to speed the development process. This report summarizes the findings of the conference.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2089-2104
Number of pages16
JournalTissue Engineering - Part A
Issue number12
StatePublished - Nov 1 2008

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Bioengineering
  • Biochemistry
  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation criteria for musculoskeletal and craniofacial tissue engineering constructs: A conference report'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this