ReviewNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Novel Nanomaterials for Developing Bone Scaffolds and Tissue Regeneration.
Review in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D-Bioprinted Multifunctional Nanocomposite Scaffolds for Alveolar Bone-Periodontal Ligament-Root Cementum Regeneration: A Narrative Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bioinspired and living multiscale composites for regenerative medicine in the treatment of surgical site infections.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Metallic topological structures in bone repair implants: Design, properties, and biological interactions.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Review
- Applications of Functional Nanomaterials in Biomedical Science.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Electrospun nanofibers for gastric cancer: local therapeutics, biomimetic models, and diagnostic interfaces.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Dual-functional micro- to nano-CFR-PEEK: promoting Hippo-mediated osseointegration while inhibitingRegenerative biomaterials · 2026Article
- Advances in Functional Scaffolds for Bone and Joint Surgery.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nanotechnologies bring a rapid paradigm shift in hard and soft bone tissue regeneration (BTR) through unprecedented control over the nanoscale structures and chemistry of biocompatible materials to regenerate the intricate architecture and functional adaptability of bone. This review focuses on the transformative analyses and prospects of current and next-generation nanomaterials in designing bioactive bone scaffolds, emphasizing hierarchical architecture, mechanical resilience, and regenerative precision. Mainly, this review elucidated the innovative findings, new capabilities, unmet challenges, and possible future opportunities associated with biocompatible inorganic ceramics (e.g., phosphates, metallic oxides) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) approved synthetic polymers, including their nanoscale structures. Furthermore, this review demonstrates the newly available approaches for achieving customized standard porosity, mechanical strengths, and accelerated bioactivity to construct an optimized nanomaterial-oriented scaffold. Numerous strategies including three-dimensional bioprinting, electro-spinning techniques and meticulous nanomaterials (NMs) fabrication are well established to achieve radical scientific precision in BTR engineering. The contemporary research is unceasingly decoding the pathways for spatial and temporal release of osteoinductive agents to enhance targeted therapy and prompt healing processes. Additionally, successful material design and integration of an osteoinductive and osteoconductive agents with the blend of contemporary technologies will bring radical success in this field. Furthermore, machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) can further decode the current complexities of material design for BTR, notwithstanding the fact that these methods call for an in-depth understanding of bone composition, relationships and impacts on biochemical processes, distribution of stem cells on the matrix, and functionalization strategies of NMs for better scaffold development. Overall, this review integrated important technological progress with ethical considerations, aiming for a future where nanotechnology-facilitated bone regeneration is boosted by enhanced functionality, safety, inclusivity, and long-term environmental responsibility. Therefore, the assimilation of a specialized research design, while upholding ethical standards, will elucidate the challenge and questions we are presently encountering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.