Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Biocompatibility and Carcinogenicity of Carbon Nanotubes as Biomaterials

Aoki K., Saito N.

Narrative Review on Systemic / IV, published in Nanomaterials (Basel) (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Nanomaterials (Basel) (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32033249
PMCID
PMC7075247
DOI
10.3390/nano10020264
Citations
47

Abstract (original English)

With the development of nanotechnology in recent years, there have been concerns about the health effects of nanoparticles. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are fibrous nanoparticles with a micro-sized length and nano-sized diameter, which exhibit excellent physical properties and are widely studied for their potential application in medicine. However, asbestos has been historically shown to cause pleural malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer by inhalation exposure. Because carbon nanotubes are also fibrous nanotubes, some have raised concerns about its possible carcinogenicity. We have reported that there is no clear evidence of carcinogenicity by local and intravenous administration of multi-walled CNTs to cancer mice models. We firmly believe that CNTs can be a safe, new, and high-performance biomaterials by controlling its type, site of administration, and dosage.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research