ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Biomaterial-based strategies for osteoporosis treatment and bone regeneration: advances and translational challenges.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by reduced bone mass, deterioration of bone microarchitecture, and increased susceptibility to fragility fractures. Although conventional antiresorptive and anabolic drugs effectively reduce fracture risk in many patients, their clinical utility is restricted by poor tissue specificity, systemic adverse effects, adherence problems, discontinuation-related risks, and their limited capacity to regenerate osteoporotic bone defects after trauma or surgery. Biomaterial-based strategies provide complementary opportunities by combining local structural support, controlled therapeutic delivery, and microenvironmental regulation. In this review, we discuss biomaterial design from an osteoporosis-specific perspective, emphasizing how disease-associated abnormalities-impaired osteoblast function, excessive osteoclast activity, reduced angiogenesis, inflammatory dysregulation, compromised extracellular matrix quality, and weakened mechanical integrity-can be addressed by scaffolds, targeted drug delivery systems, and biologically derived platforms. Ceramic, polymeric, and composite scaffolds are compared with respect to osteoconduction, ion-mediated signaling, mechanical support, and manufacturability. Bone-targeted nanoparticles, injectable hydrogels, and stimuli-responsive carriers are evaluated as strategies for the localized delivery of antiresorptive agents, anabolic molecules, nucleic acids, and osteogenic cues. We further summarize platelet-rich plasma/platelet-rich fibrin, growth factor-loaded matrices, mesenchymal stem cell-laden scaffolds, extracellular vesicle-functionalized systems, and gene-activated matrices as emerging biological or cell-free regenerative platforms. Finally, key translational barriers, including long-term safety, reproducible manufacturing, standardized osteoporotic models, and regulatory pathways for combination products, are discussed. Overall, biomaterials should not be viewed as replacements for established pharmacotherapy but as disease-tailored local interventions that may improve osteoporotic fracture repair and bone regeneration when integrated with rational clinical management.
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.