Abstract
Approx. every third hospitalized patient in Europe suffers from musculoskeletal injuries or diseases. Up to 20% of these patients need costly surgical revisions after delayed or impaired fracture healing. Reasons for this are the severity of the trauma, individual factors, e.g, the patients' age, individual lifestyle, chronic diseases, medication, and, over 70 diseases that negatively affect the bone quality. To investigate the various disease constellations and/or develop new treatment strategies, many in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro models can be applied. Analyzing these various models more closely, it is obvious that many of them have limits and/or restrictions. Undoubtedly, in vivo models most completely represent the biological situation. Besides possible species-specific differences, ethical concerns may question the use of in vivo models especially for large screening approaches. Challenging whether ex vivo or in vitro bone models can be used as an adequate replacement for such screenings, we here summarize the advantages and challenges of frequently used ex vivo and in vitro bone models to study disturbed bone metabolism and fracture healing. Using own examples, we discuss the common challenge of cell-specific normalization of data obtained from more complex in vitro models as one example of the analytical limits which lower the full potential of these complex model systems.