ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2026
Natural Biomaterials for Osteochondral Repair: From Source to Strategy.
Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Osteochondral tissue repair remains a formidable clinical challenge due to its complex layered structure and limited intrinsic healing capacity. Compared with synthetic materials, natural biomaterials offer distinct advantages, including excellent biocompatibility, intrinsic bioactivity, and structural similarity to native tissues, making them particularly well-suited for recreating the native tissue microenvironment and guiding cellular behavior. This review systematically examines natural biomaterials used in osteochondral repair according to their biological origin, covering human-derived, animal-derived, plant-derived, and microbial-derived categories, and discusses how the source-specific biological properties of each category underpin their respective repair mechanisms and applications. Within animal-derived materials, particular attention is given to decellularization strategies, as the choice of method critically determines the preservation of bioactive components and the immunogenic profile of the resulting scaffold. Notably, 91.5% of the 47 osteochondral repair products approved globally since 2000 incorporate natural materials, further underscoring their enduring clinical relevance. We further highlight that the absence of standardized preparation, quality control, and evaluation frameworks remains an important challenge for broader clinical adoption. Establishing reproducible and verifiable standards will be essential to bridging the gap between laboratory innovation and clinical translation.
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.