## 3 Results
### Outcomes Analysis  
The outcomes were evaluated using histology, imaging, and biomechanical testing (Table 2). Only [PERSON] et al. (2016) [34] and [PERSON] et al. (2006) [28] did not perform imaging analysis. [PERSON] et al. (2021) [26], [PERSON] et al. (2021) [27], [PERSON] et al. (2022) [32], and [PERSON] et al. (2017) [31] utilized Micro-Computed Tomography (Micro-CT). Additionally, [PERSON] et al. (2021) [26] and [PERSON] et al. (2022) [32] performed PET-CT (Positron Emission Tomography) imaging post-implantation. After removing the fixation plate, a computed tomography (CT) scan was also performed. Three studies [29, 35, 36] utilized only CT scans as the analysis tool. [PERSON] et al. (2009) [33] performed imaging analysis using Technetium 99m-methyl diphosphate (Jiangsu Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Wuxi, China) single-photon emission computed tomography (99 mTc-MDP SPECT/CT) (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) after 8 h and 8 weeks of implantation in muscle and mandible. Only [PERSON] et al. (2019) [30] used radiographs for imaging. Qualitative histological analysis was performed in all included studies, utilizing various staining techniques to examine newly formed bone and osteoblastic cells. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining was employed in five studies [26, 27, 34, 35, 36]. [PERSON] et al. (2006) [28] performed histological analysis using Giemsa-toluidine, H&E, or the Goldner technique for staining; [PERSON] et al. (2017) [31] used 1% methylene blue and 0.3% basic fuchsine; [PERSON] et al. (2022) [32] used hematoxylin and eosin saffron (HES) and Movat pentachrome to analyze newly formed bone and osteoblastic cells. [PERSON] et al. (2019) [30] performed the staining using toluidine blue dye, while [PERSON] et al. (2006) [29] and [PERSON] et al. (2009) [33] also used Masson's trichrome in addition to the H&E staining. Regarding biomechanical testing, only five studies performed biomechanical tests [26, 27, 30, 33, 36] using the scaffolds. [PERSON] et al. (2021) [26] performed uniaxial compressive strength testing, [PERSON] et al. (2021) [27] performed compressive and mechanical strength testing, [PERSON] et al. (2007) [35] performed biomechanical testing through a bending system, and [PERSON] et al. (2009) [33] also performed compressive and bending testing using an electric universal testing machine (AG-10 TA Type; Shimadzu, Japan). [PERSON] et al. (2019) [30] exposed the implants to a pullout test measuring the maximum force in Newtons (N) (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Characteristics**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Animal**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Strain/Breed**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Age**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Weight**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Defect Size**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Defect Region**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Period of**} \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Studies**} & & & & & **(mm)** & & **(Weeks)** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. 2007 [35] & Canine & Mongrel & 1 year and 6 & \multirow{2}{*}{20 kg} & 30 mm in & \multirow{2}{*}{Mandible} & 4, 12, 26, and 32 weeks \\  & & & months & & & diameter & & 32 weeks \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. 2017 [31] & Sheep & Dutch Tekel & 2 and 3 years & NS & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} 20 mm in \\ diameter \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{Calvaria} & 13 and 39 weeks \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5} [PERSON] et al. 2019 [30] & Minipig & NS & 10 months & 35–40 kg &
\begin{tabular}{c} 15 \(\times\) 60 \(\times\) 45 \\ mm \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{Mandible} & 14 days and 17 months \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: NS = Not Stated; mm = millimeters; kg = kilograms.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._