### Properties of an Ideal Scaffold for Bone Regeneration
Despite promising results in bone regeneration, clinical translation is still impossible due to a lack of understanding of the biological interplay between scaffolds, biomolecules, exogenous cells, and host immune reactions. In addition, a qualitative and quantitative comparison of outcomes between the animal and clinical studies was impossible due to the significant differences between the studies regarding the methodology, definition of critical-sized defects, follow-up period, and evaluation of outcomes. Still, there is much controversy regarding defining what constitutes a critical-sized defect. In general, a \"critically-sized\" defect is regarded as one that would not heal spontaneously despite surgical stabilization and requires further surgical intervention, such as autologous bone grafting [12]. Differences among studies using the same animal models for mandibular bone defects allow for an objective comparison of outcomes. The clinical evaluation of scaffolds for mandibular bone regeneration is limited to case reports or single-center case series with limited follow-up periods and questionable results. This review aimed to evaluate current research on the regeneration of mandibular defects and discuss the further development of mandibular BTE methodologies, focusing on a better understanding of the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Scaffold Property** & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Desirable Properties**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Biocompatibilityibility} & \(\bullet\) & Non-toxic breakdown products; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Non-inflammatory scaffold components; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Without immune rejection; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Non-carcinogenic. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Biodegradability} & \(\bullet\) & Controlled degradation complementing tissue ingrowth and \\  & \(\bullet\) & Allowing host cells to produce extracellular matrix; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Sufficient support to the newly formed tissue; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Degradable by host biological processes. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Mechanical stability} & \(\bullet\) & Enough compressive, elastic and fatigue strength for osteogenic \\  & \(\bullet\) & cell migration; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Scaffold material allows easy surgical manipulation; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Material adaptive to the individual bone defect. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Bioactivity} & \(\bullet\) & Scaffold material should interact and bind to the host tissue \\  & \(\bullet\) & Osteoconductive properties; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Stimulation of cell ingrowth, attachment and differentiation; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Stimulation of neoangiogenesis. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Architecture} & \(\bullet\) & Macroporosity to allow cell migration and angiogenesis; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Microporosity to increase surface area for cell-scaffold \\  & \(\bullet\) & Chronic connections; \\  & \(\bullet\) & High porosity index and interconnected pores allow for \\  & \(\bullet\) & diffusion of nutrients and cell migration; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Adequate pore size for osteogenic cells. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Surface of the scaffold} & \(\bullet\) & Hydrophilicity and surface roughness of the scaffold surface \\  & \(\bullet\) & enhances protein adsorption and host cell binding. \\ \hline Sterilibility & \(\bullet\) & Sterilibility without loss of bioactivity. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Ideal properties of the scaffold to promote bone regeneration. clinical use of different scaffold types in the BTE process to overcome mandibular defects. Furthermore, the goal was to compare the result of scaffold-based BTE in conjunction with various SCs and growth factors in bone reconstruction to aid reconstructive surgeons in determining the most suitable scaffolds for mandibular bone reconstruction.