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

Cellulose-Based Nanomaterials Advance Biomedicine: A Review

Abdelhamid HN., Mathew AP.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Int J Mol Sci (2022) — 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
Int J Mol Sci (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
35628218
PMCID
PMC9140895
DOI
10.3390/ijms23105405
Citations
64

Abstract (original English)

There are various biomaterials, but none fulfills all requirements. Cellulose biopolymers have advanced biomedicine to satisfy high market demand and circumvent many ecological concerns. This review aims to present an overview of cellulose knowledge and technical biomedical applications such as antibacterial agents, antifouling, wound healing, drug delivery, tissue engineering, and bone regeneration. It includes an extensive bibliography of recent research findings from fundamental and applied investigations. Cellulose-based materials are tailorable to obtain suitable chemical, mechanical, and physical properties required for biomedical applications. The chemical structure of cellulose allows modifications and simple conjugation with several materials, including nanoparticles, without tedious efforts. They render the applications cheap, biocompatible, biodegradable, and easy to shape and process.

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
CelluloseBiocompatible MaterialsDrug Delivery SystemsTissue EngineeringNanostructures

Browse all related research

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

Related research