Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42737117›Full record

ReviewPolymers2026

Soft, Reactive, and Alive: A Dynamic Framework for Degradation and Functional Stability of Polymeric Biomaterials.

Alfredo Rondinella, Elia Marin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Alfredo RondinellaDepartment Polytechnic of Engineering and Architecture, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Elia MarinDepartment Polytechnic of Engineering and Architecture, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0981-7821

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 26K08129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polymeric biomaterials do not degrade in vivo through isolated chemical or mechanical events. Hydrolysis, oxidation, enzymatic cleavage, fatigue, wear, protein adsorption, and lipid uptake often interact across the material surface, bulk, and surrounding biological environment, producing time-dependent changes in both structure and function. Here, we propose a conceptual framework for organizing polymer degradation under biomedical conditions as a directional network of coupled mechanisms, emphasizing how established degradation pathways can influence one another and collectively contribute to time-dependent functional loss. The framework distinguishes degradation reactions from interfacial modulators and links molecular damage to functionality retention, defined according to application-specific endpoints such as mechanical strength, mass retention, dimensional stability, or interfacial performance. We introduce a qualitative interaction matrix to describe how individual mechanisms can amplify or modulate downstream pathways, and we use this matrix to identify recurrent degradation archetypes across major biomedical polymer classes, including polyesters, polyolefins, polyamides, polyurethanes, silicones, polyacrylates, polyvinyl polymers, polyimides, and natural polymers. This perspective emphasizes that material optimization strategies rarely eliminate degradation; instead, they shift the hierarchy of active pathways. By reframing biocompatibility as a dynamic, functionality-dependent property, the proposed framework provides a structured basis for comparing polymeric biomaterials, designing more realistic in vitro tests, and developing future data-driven models of long-term implant performance.

Indexed as

degradation mechanismsdynamic biocompatibilityfunctionality retentionpolymeric biomaterials

Identifiers

PMID42737117
PMCPMC13568335

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.