Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855573›Full record

ReviewBurns & trauma2024

Structure-optimized and microenvironment-inspired nanocomposite biomaterials in bone tissue engineering.

Zheng Lv, Ying Ji, Guoliang Wen, Xiayi Liang, Kun Zhang, Wei Zhang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Burns & trauma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Bioactive substances delivery for bone repair via nanocomposites: advantages, mechanisms, and emerging trends].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. How Emerging Nanomaterials are Effective in Bone Regeneration?International journal of nanomedicine · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zheng LvDepartment of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital, Guilin Medical University, No. 15 Lequn Road, Guilin 541001, Guangxi, China.
Ying JiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Hospital, Guilin Medical University, No. 15 Lequn Road, Guilin 541001, Guangxi, China.
Guoliang WenDepartment of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital, Guilin Medical University, No. 15 Lequn Road, Guilin 541001, Guangxi, China.
Xiayi LiangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, First Ring Road, Chengdu 610072, Sichuan, China.
Kun ZhangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 32, West Second Section, First Ring Road, Chengdu 610072, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6971-1164
Wei ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Liuzhou People's Hospital, Guangxi Medical University, No. 8 Wenchang Road, Liuzhou 545006, Guangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critical-sized bone defects represent a significant clinical challenge due to their inability to undergo spontaneous regeneration, necessitating graft interventions for effective treatment. The development of tissue-engineered scaffolds and regenerative medicine has made bone tissue engineering a highly viable treatment for bone defects. The physical and biological properties of nanocomposite biomaterials, which have optimized structures and the ability to simulate the regenerative microenvironment of bone, are promising for application in the field of tissue engineering. These biomaterials offer distinct advantages over traditional materials by facilitating cellular adhesion and proliferation, maintaining excellent osteoconductivity and biocompatibility, enabling precise control of degradation rates, and enhancing mechanical properties. Importantly, they can simulate the natural structure of bone tissue, including the specific microenvironment, which is crucial for promoting the repair and regeneration of bone defects. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the recent research developments and applications of structure-optimized and microenvironment-inspired nanocomposite biomaterials in bone tissue engineering. This review focuses on the properties and advantages these materials offer for bone repair and tissue regeneration, summarizing the latest progress in the application of nanocomposite biomaterials for bone tissue engineering and highlighting the challenges and future perspectives in the field. Through this analysis, the paper aims to underscore the promising potential of nanocomposite biomaterials in bone tissue engineering, contributing to the informed design and strategic planning of next-generation biomaterials for regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

BiomaterialsBone microenvironmentStructure optimizationTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID38855573
PMCPMC11162833

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.