Cornea regeneration as an alternative to human donor transplantation
dc.contributor.author | Brunette, Isabelle | |
dc.contributor.author | Alarcon, Emilio I. | |
dc.contributor.author | Griffith, May | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-05-27T18:30:39Z | |
dc.date.available | NO_RESTRICTION | fr |
dc.date.available | 2020-05-27T18:30:39Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1866/23382 | |
dc.publisher | London Touch Briefings | fr |
dc.subject | Cornea | fr |
dc.subject | Biomaterials | fr |
dc.subject | Prostheses | fr |
dc.subject | Regeneration | fr |
dc.subject | Self-assembly | fr |
dc.subject | Implants | fr |
dc.subject | Clinical studies | fr |
dc.title | Cornea regeneration as an alternative to human donor transplantation | fr |
dc.type | Article | fr |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Université de Montréal. Faculté de médecine. Département d'ophtalmologie | fr |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.17925/EOR.2015.09.02.111 | |
dcterms.abstract | There is a need for an alternative to human donor corneas as the availability of good-quality tissues remains limited, with this situation potentially worsening as the population in many countries is progressively ageing. There have been numerous attempts to develop corneal equivalent as alternatives to donated human corneas as well as prostheses. In this short review, we focus on the efforts in bioengineering implants that promote regeneration by Canadian researchers, including our current team of authors. The examples of technologies developed that we describe include biomaterials that allow for partial regeneration of corneal tissue, self-assembled cornea constructs and cell-free corneal implants that promoted regeneration when evaluated in clinical trials in Europe. | fr |
dcterms.isPartOf | urn:ISSN:1756-1809 | fr |
dcterms.isPartOf | urn:ISSN:1756-1795 | fr |
dcterms.language | eng | fr |
UdeM.ReferenceFournieParDeposant | Brunette I, Alarcon EI, Griffith M. Cornea regeneration as an alternative to human donor transplantation. European Ophthalmic Review. 2015;9(2):111–14. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17925/EOR.2015.09.02.111 | fr |
UdeM.VersionRioxx | Version publiée / Version of Record | fr |
oaire.citationTitle | European ophthalmic review | |
oaire.citationVolume | 9 | |
oaire.citationIssue | 2 | |
oaire.citationStartPage | 111 | |
oaire.citationEndPage | 114 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.