Biomimetic chitosan with biocomposite nanomaterials for bone tissue repair and regeneration
Kim SK., Murugan SS., Dalavi PA., Gupta S., Anil S., Seong GH.
Narrative Review, published in Beilstein J Nanotechnol (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Beilstein J Nanotechnol (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36247529
- PMCID
- PMC9531556
- DOI
- 10.3762/bjnano.13.92
- Citations
- 13
Abstract (original English)
Biomimetic materials for better bone graft substitutes are a thrust area of research among researchers and clinicians. Autografts, allografts, and synthetic grafts are often utilized to repair and regenerate bone defects. Autografts are still considered the gold-standard method/material to treat bone-related issues with satisfactory outcomes. It is important that the material used for bone tissue repair is simultaneously osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic. To overcome this problem, researchers have tried several ways to develop different materials using chitosan-based nanocomposites of silver, copper, gold, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide, and biosilica. The combination of materials helps in the expression of ideal bone formation genes of alkaline phosphatase, bone morphogenic protein, runt-related transcription factor-2, bone sialoprotein, and osteocalcin. In vitro and in vivo studies highlight the scientific findings of antibacterial activity, tissue integration, stiffness, mechanical strength, and degradation behaviour of composite materials for tissue engineering applications.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.