Research advances of nanomaterials for the acceleration of fracture healing
Zhang M., Xu F., Cao J., Dou Q., Wang J., Wang J.
Narrative Review, published in Bioact Mater (2024) — 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
- Bioact Mater (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 37663621
- PMCID
- PMC10474571
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2023.08.016
- Citations
- 40
Abstract (original English)
The bone fracture cases have been increasing yearly, accompanied by the increased number of patients experiencing non-union or delayed union after their bone fracture. Although clinical materials facilitate fracture healing (e.g., metallic and composite materials), they cannot fulfill the requirements due to the slow degradation rate, limited osteogenic activity, inadequate osseointegration ability, and suboptimal mechanical properties. Since early 2000, nanomaterials successfully mimic the nanoscale features of bones and offer unique properties, receiving extensive attention. This paper reviews the achievements of nanomaterials in treating bone fracture (e.g., the intrinsic properties of nanomaterials, nanomaterials for bone defect filling, and nanoscale drug delivery systems in treating fracture delayed union). Furthermore, we discuss the perspectives on the challenges and future directions of developing nanomaterials to accelerate fracture healing.
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.