Research status of biomaterials based on physical signals for bone injury repair
Sun Q., Li CH., Liu QS., Zhang YB., Hu BS., Feng Q.
Narrative Review, published in Regen Ther (2025) — 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
- Regen Ther (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40027992
- PMCID
- PMC11872413
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.reth.2025.01.025
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
Bone defects repair continues to be a significant challenge facing the world. Biological scaffolds, bioactive molecules, and cells are the three major elements of bone tissue engineering, which have been widely used in bone regeneration therapy, especially with the rise of bioactive molecules in recent years. According to their physical properties, they can be divided into force, magnetic field (MF), electric field (EF), ultrasonic wave, light, heat, etc. However, the transmission of bioactive molecules has obvious shortcomings that hinder the development of the tissue-rearing process. This paper reviews the mechanism of physical signal induction in bone tissue engineering in recent years. It summarizes the application strategies of physical signal in bone tissue engineering, including biomaterial designs, physical signal loading strategies and related pathways. Finally, the ongoing challenges and prospects for the future are discussed.
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.