ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2026
GelMA-Based Nanocomposites for Bone Defect Regeneration: Design, Performance, and Clinical Translation Potential.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hydroxyapatite-based bone repair biomaterials based on clinical heterogeneity: modification strategies, performance regulation, and personalized repair pathways.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review summarizes recent advances in gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA)-based nanocomposites for bone defect regeneration, addressing the persistent clinical need for effective and customizable bone repair strategies. As an extracellular matrix (ECM)-mimicking hydrogel, GelMA offers favourable biocompatibility, tunable mechanics, and photo-crosslinkability, enabling integration with light-based 3D printing platforms to fabricate patient-specific scaffolds and, more recently, skeletal organoid-inspired constructs. Nevertheless, key barriers to translational advancement remain, including limited load-bearing capacity without reinforcement, insufficient vascularization, lack of intrinsic antibacterial activity, and a shortage of large-animal validation and well-designed clinical trials. We synthesize how formulation and processing parameters translate into scaffold properties and biological outcomes, and we discuss representative optimization strategies-such as composite reinforcement with hydroxyapatite/bioglass, bioactive molecule delivery, and immunomodulatory design-to address these limitations. We further highlight application-oriented evidence across major bone-loss-related conditions and summarize practical translational bottlenecks, including batch-to-batch reproducibility, scalable, GMP-compliant pathways that may be required, sterilization compatibility, and the need to synchronize degradation kinetics with new bone formation. By integrating material design, mechanistic considerations, and translational constraints, this review provides a framework to guide the rational development of GelMA-based systems toward clinically relevant bone regeneration.
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.