Nanotechnology-based bone regeneration in orthopedics: a review of recent trends

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Annamalai RT, Hong X, Schott NG, Tiruchinapally G, Levi B, Stegemann JP. Injectable osteogenic microtissues containing mesenchymal stromal cells conformally fill and repair critical size defects. Biomaterials 208, 32–44 (2019). • Explores the development of injectable microtissues containing mesenchymal stromal cells, focusing on their ability to repair critical-size bone defects efficiently.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Yang D, Chen Z, Xu Z, Qin L, Yi W, Long Y. Roles of stem cell exosomes and their microRNA carrier in bone and cartilage regeneration. Curr. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 18(7), 917–925 (2023). •• Provides insights into the mechanisms by which stem cell exosomes contribute to tissue repair, offering valuable information for researchers and clinicians interested in regenerative medicine.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Mcdermott AM, Herberg S, Mason DE et al. Recapitulating bone development through engineered mesenchymal condensations and mechanical cues for tissue regeneration. Sci. Transl. Med. 11(495), eaav7756 (2019). • Presents a novel approach to recapitulate bone development by engineering mesenchymal condensations and applying mechanical cues, and explores how these engineered processes can be leveraged for tissue regeneration, particularly in the context of bone.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4. Lee J-W, Han H-S, Han K-J et al. Long-term clinical study and multiscale analysis of in vivo biodegradation mechanism of Mg alloy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113(3), 716–721 (2016). • Long-term clinical study and multiscale analysis of the in vivo biodegradation mechanism of magnesium alloy, contributing to our understanding of magnesium alloy implants’ long-term performance and safety.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5. Bandyopadhyay A, Mitra I, Goodman SB, Kumar M, Bose S. Improving biocompatibility for next generation of metallic implants. Prog. Mater. Sci. 133, 101053 (2022). •• Provides insights into innovative materials and surface modification techniques aimed at reducing adverse reactions and promoting better tissue integration, thus advancing the field of implantology.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6. Marrale J, Morrissey MC, Haddad FS. A literature review of autograft and allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 15, 690–704 (2007). • Comprehensive overview of autograft and allograft options for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, helping clinicians make informed decisions regarding graft selection.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7. Xu Z, Gao W, Bai H. Silk-based bioinspired structural and functional materials. iScience 25(3), 103940 (2022). •• Explores the development of bioinspired materials based on silk; discusses the structural and functional properties of silk and how these properties can inspire the design of innovative biomaterials for various applications, including tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8. Gong T, Xie J, Liao J, Zhang T, Lin S, Lin Y. Nanomaterials and bone regeneration. Bone Res. 3(1), 1–7 (2015). • Provides insights into the role of nanomaterials in bone regeneration; discusses various nanomaterials, their properties and how they can enhance bone tissue engineering and regeneration.
  Google Scholar
• 9. Kunrath MF, Shah FA, Dahlin C. Bench-to-bedside: feasibility of nano-engineered and drug-delivery biomaterials for bone-anchored implants and periodontal applications. Mater. Today Bio 18, 100540 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Gresham RC, Bahney CS, Leach JK. Growth factor delivery using extracellular matrix-mimicking substrates for musculoskeletal tissue engineering and repair. Bioact. Mater. 6(7), 1945–1956 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Al-Qudsy L, Hu Y-W, Xu H, Yang P-F. Mineralized collagen fibrils: an essential component in determining the mechanical behavior of cortical bone. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 9(5), 2203–2219 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Liu Y, Luo D, Kou XX et al. Hierarchical intrafibrillar nanocarbonated apatite assembly improves the nanomechanics and cytocompatibility of mineralized collagen. Adv. Funct. Mater. 23(11), 1404–1411 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Liu Y, Luo D, Wang T. Hierarchical structures of bone and bioinspired bone tissue engineering. Small 12(34), 4611–4632 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Feng C, Zhang W, Deng C et al. 3D printing of lotus root-like biomimetic materials for cell delivery and tissue regeneration. Adv. Sci. 4(12), 1700401 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 15. Zhou T, Yan L, Xie C et al. A mussel-inspired persistent ROS-scavenging, electroactive, and osteoinductive scaffold based on electrochemical-driven in situ nanoassembly. Small 15(25), 1805440 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 16. Abdelaziz AG, Nageh H, Abdo SM et al. A review of 3D polymeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: principles, fabrication techniques, immunomodulatory roles, and challenges. Bioengineering 10(2), 204 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Oo JA, Brandes RP, Leisegang MS. Long non-coding RNAs: novel regulators of cellular physiology and function. Pflugers Arch. 474(2), 191–204 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18. Han X, Li B, Zhang S. MIR503HG: a potential diagnostic and therapeutic target in human diseases. Biomed. Pharmacother. 160, 114314 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. Guo C-J, Ma X-K, Xing Y-H et al. Distinct processing of lncRNAs contributes to non-conserved functions in stem cells. Cell 181(3), 621–636 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Statello L, Guo C-J, Chen L-L, Huarte M. Gene regulation by long non-coding RNAs and its biological functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22(2), 96–118 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Liu H, Xu Y, Yao B, Sui T, Lai L, Li Z. A novel N⁶-methyladenosine (m⁶A)-dependent fate decision for the lncRNA THOR. Cell Death Dis. 11(8), 613 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Zhang D, Xue J, Peng F. The regulatory activities of MALAT1 in the development of bone and cartilage diseases. Front. Endocrinol. 13, 1054827 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23. Yetisgin AA, Cetinel S, Zuvin M, Kosar A, Kutlu O. Therapeutic nanoparticles and their targeted delivery applications. Mole 25(9), 2193 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Naskar S, Kuotsu K, Sharma S. Chitosan-based nanoparticles as drug delivery systems: a review on two decades of research. J. Drug Target. 27(4), 379–393 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Qu H, Fu H, Han Z, Sun Y. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering scaffolds: a review. RSC Adv. 9(45), 26252–26262 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Gautam G, Kumar S, Kumar K. Processing of biomaterials for bone tissue engineering: state of the art. Mater. Today Proc. 50, 2206–2217 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. You Q, Lu M, Li Z, Zhou Y, Tu C. Cell sheet technology as an engineering-based approach to bone regeneration. Int. J. Nanomed. 17, 6491–6511 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Zheng K, Bai J, Yang H et al. Nanomaterial-assisted theranosis of bone diseases. Bioact. Mater. 24, 263–312 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Mcmahon RE, Wang L, Skoracki R, Mathur AB. Development of nanomaterials for bone repair and regeneration. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 101(2), 387–397 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 30. Qiao K, Xu L, Tang J et al. The advances in nanomedicine for bone and cartilage repair. J. Nanobiotechnol. 20(1), 141 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Kim YS, Smoak MM, Melchiorri AJ, Mikos AG. An overview of the tissue engineering market in the United States from 2011 to 2018. Tissue Eng. A 25(1–2), 1–8 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32. Jin S-S, He D-Q, Luo D et al. A biomimetic hierarchical nanointerface orchestrates macrophage polarization and mesenchymal stem cell recruitment to promote endogenous bone regeneration. ACS Nano 13(6), 6581–6595 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33. Stuckensen K, Schwab A, Knauer M et al. Tissue mimicry in morphology and composition promotes hierarchical matrix remodeling of invading stem cells in osteochondral and meniscus scaffolds. Adv. Mater. 30(28), 1706754 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 34. Laubach M, Suresh S, Herath B et al. Clinical translation of a patient-specific scaffold-guided bone regeneration concept in four cases with large long bone defects. J. Orthop. Translat. 34, 73–84 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35. Mirkhalaf M, Men Y, Wang R, No Y, Zreiqat H. Personalized 3D printed bone scaffolds: a review. Acta Biomater. 156, 110–124 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36. Laubach M, Kobbe P, Hutmacher DW. Biodegradable interbody cages for lumbar spine fusion: current concepts and future directions. Biomaterials 288, 121699 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37. Tavares WM, De França SA, Paiva WS, Teixeira MJ. A systematic review and meta-analysis of fusion rate enhancements and bone graft options for spine surgery. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 7546 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Shen M, Wang L, Gao Y et al. 3D bioprinting of in situ vascularized tissue-engineered bone for repairing large segmental bone defects. Mater. Today Bio 16, 100382 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39. Brazill JM, Beeve AT, Craft CS, Ivanusic JJ, Scheller EL. Nerves in bone: evolving concepts in pain and anabolism. J. Bone Miner. Res. 34(8), 1393–1406 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40. Nadine S, Fernandes IJ, Correia CR, Mano JF. Close-to-native bone repair via tissue engineered endochondral ossification approaches. iScience 25(11), 105370 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41. Bhumiratana S, Bernhard JC, Alfi DM et al. Tissue-engineered autologous grafts for facial bone reconstruction. Sci. Transl. Med. 8(343), 343ra383–343ra383 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 42. Conith AJ, Lam DT, Albertson RC. Muscle-induced loading as an important source of variation in craniofacial skeletal shape. Genesis 57(1), e23263 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 43. Charbe NB, Tambuwala M, Palakurthi SS et al. Biomedical applications of three-dimensional bioprinted craniofacial tissue engineering. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 8(1), e10333 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 44. Xu X, Liao L, Tian W. Strategies of prevascularization in tissue engineering and regeneration of craniofacial tissues. Tissue Eng. B Rev. 28(2), 464–475 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Karanth D, Song K, Martin ML et al. Towards resorbable 3D-printed scaffolds for craniofacial bone regeneration. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12645 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46. Liu M, Nakasaki M, Shih Y-RV, Varghese S. Effect of age on biomaterial-mediated in situ bone tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater. 78, 329–340 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47. Crago M, Winlaw DS, Farajikhah S, Dehghani F, Naficy S. Pediatric pulmonary valve replacements: clinical challenges and emerging technologies. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 8(4), e10501 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 48. Gabel L, Macdonald HM, Mckay HA. Sex differences and growth-related adaptations in bone microarchitecture, geometry, density, and strength from childhood to early adulthood: a mixed longitudinal HR-pQCT study. J. Bone Miner. Res. 32(2), 250–263 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 49. Gu Y, Forget A, Shastri VP. Biobridge: an outlook on translational bioinks for 3D bioprinting. Adv. Sci. 9(3), 2103469 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 50. Thrivikraman G, Athirasala A, Gordon R et al. Rapid fabrication of vascularized and innervated cell-laden bone models with biomimetic intrafibrillar collagen mineralization. Nat. Commun. 10(1), 3520 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 51. Martine LC, Holzapfel BM, Mcgovern JA et al. Engineering a humanized bone organ model in mice to study bone metastases. Nat. Protoc. 12(4), 639–663 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 52. Young SA, Heller A-D, Garske DS et al. From breast cancer cell homing to the onset of early bone metastasis: dynamic bone (re) modeling as a driver of metastasis. bioRxiv 2023.2001.2024.525352 https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.24.525352 (2023).
  Google Scholar
• 53. Ratner BD. Biomaterials science: an interdisciplinary endeavor. In: Biomaterials Science: an Introduction to Materials in Medicine. Elsevier, USA, 1–8 (1996).
  Google Scholar
• 54. Chen L, Yu C, Xu W et al. Dual-targeted nanodiscs revealing the cross-talk between osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells and macrophages. ACS Nano 17(3), 3153–3167 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55. Guo J, Kim Y, Xie V et al. Modular, tissue-specific, and biodegradable hydrogel cross-linkers for tissue engineering. Sci. Adv. 5(6), eaaw7396 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56. Deng C, Lin R, Zhang M et al. Micro/nanometer-structured scaffolds for regeneration of both cartilage and subchondral bone. Adv. Funct. Mater. 29(4), 1806068 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 57. Hu X, Lin Z, He J et al. Recent progress in 3D printing degradable polylactic acid-based bone repair scaffold for the application of cancellous bone defect. MedComm Biomater. Appl. 1(1), e14 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 58. Bohner M, Miron RJ. A proposed mechanism for material-induced heterotopic ossification. Mater. Today 22, 132–141 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 59. Bernardo MP, Da Silva BC, Hamouda AE et al. PLA/hydroxyapatite scaffolds exhibit in vitro immunological inertness and promote robust osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells without osteogenic stimuli. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 2333 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60. Wilkesmann S, Westhauser F. Tailoring the osteogenic properties of bioactive glasses by incorporation of therapeutic ions for orthopedic applications. In: Bioactive Glasses and Glass-Ceramics: Fundamentals and Applications. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 203–226 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 61. Zarrintaj P, Seidi F, Azarfam MY et al. Biopolymer-based composites for tissue engineering applications: a basis for future opportunities. Compos. B Eng. 258, 110701 (2023).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 62. Lee SS, Du X, Smit T et al. 3D-printed LEGO^®-inspired titanium scaffolds for patient-specific regenerative medicine. bioRxiv 2023.2003.2030.534953 https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.30.534953 (2023).
  Google Scholar
• 63. Chen W, Zhang H, Zhou Q, Zhou F, Zhang Q, Su J. Smart hydrogels for bone reconstruction via modulating the microenvironment. Research (Wash. DC) 6, 89 (2023).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 64. Wei DX, Dao JW, Chen GQ. A micro-ark for cells: highly open porous polyhydroxyalkanoate microspheres as injectable scaffolds for tissue regeneration. Adv. Mater. 30(31), 1802273 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 65. Lin Z, Wu J, Qiao W et al. Precisely controlled delivery of magnesium ions thru sponge-like monodisperse PLGA/nano-MgO-alginate core-shell microsphere device to enable in situ bone regeneration. Biomaterials 174, 1–16 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66. Tan J, Zhang M, Hai Z et al. Sustained release of two bioactive factors from supramolecular hydrogel promotes periodontal bone regeneration. ACS Nano 13(5), 5616–5622 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 67. Hao L, Wang A, Fu J et al. Biomineralized dipeptide self-assembled hydrogel with ultrahigh mechanical strength and osteoinductivity for bone regeneration. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 657, 130622 (2023).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 68. Lenne P-F, Trivedi V. Sculpting tissues by phase transitions. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 664 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69. Sri H, Ganapathy D, Venugopalan S, Deshmukh M. Current trends in bone grafts – a review. J. Pharm. Negat. Results 13(7), 474–481 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 70. Chakraborty U, Bhanjana G, Kaur N et al. Design and testing of nanobiomaterials for orthopedic implants. In: Engineered Nanostructures for Therapeutics and Biomedical Applications. Kaushik AKKumar SChaudhary GR (Eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 227–271 (2023).
  Google Scholar
• 71. Zhao Y, Bai L, Zhang Y et al. Type I collagen decorated nanoporous network on titanium implant surface promotes osseointegration through mediating immunomodulation, angiogenesis, and osteogenesis. Biomaterials 288, 121684 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 72. Luo J, Walker M, Xiao Y, Donnelly H, Dalby MJ, Salmeron-Sanchez M. The influence of nanotopography on cell behaviour through interactions with the extracellular matrix – a review. Bioact. Mater. 15, 145–159 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 73. Gu X, Wang F, Li X. Overview of scaffold reinforcement for tissue repair. In: Tissue Repair: Reinforced Scaffolds. Li X (Ed.). Springer, NY, USA, 1–23 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 74. Elangomannan S, Louis K, Dharmaraj BM, Kandasamy VS, Soundarapandian K, Gopi D. Carbon nanofiber/polycaprolactone/mineralized hydroxyapatite nanofibrous scaffolds for potential orthopedic applications. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9(7), 6342–6355 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75. Misra RDK, Nune C, Pesacreta TC, Somani MC, Karjalainen LP. Understanding the impact of grain structure in austenitic stainless steel from a nanograined regime to a coarse-grained regime on osteoblast functions using a novel metal deformation–annealing sequence. Acta Biomater. 9(4), 6245–6258 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 76. Webster TJ, Waid MC, McKenzie JL, Price RL, Ejiofor JU. Nano-biotechnology: carbon nanofibres as improved neural and orthopaedic implants. Nanotechnology 15(1), 9 (2004).
  Google Scholar
• 77. Mohandas G, Oskolkov N, McMahon M, Walczak P, Janowski M. Porous tantalum and tantalum oxide nanoparticles for regenerative medicine. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 74(2), 188–196 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 78. Morelli S, Salerno S, Holopainen J, Ritala M, De Bartolo L. Osteogenic and osteoclastogenic differentiation of co-cultured cells in polylactic acid–nanohydroxyapatite fiber scaffolds. J. Biotechnol. 204, 53–62 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 79. Webster TJ, Ergun C, Doremus RH, Siegel RW, Bizios R. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials 21(17), 1803–1810 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 80. Sayyar S, Murray E, Thompson BC, Gambhir S, Officer DL, Wallace GG. Covalently linked biocompatible graphene/polycaprolactone composites for tissue engineering. Carbon 52, 296–304 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 81. Ogihara N, Usui Y, Aoki K et al. Biocompatibility and bone tissue compatibility of alumina ceramics reinforced with carbon nanotubes. Nanomedicine 7(7), 981–993 (2012).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 82. Kong H, Jang J. Antibacterial properties of novel poly (methyl methacrylate) nanofiber containing silver nanoparticles. Langmuir 24(5), 2051–2056 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 83. Buzarovska A, Gualandi C, Parrilli A, Scandola M. Effect of TiO₂ nanoparticle loading on poly(L-lactic acid) porous scaffolds fabricated by TIPS. Composites B Eng. 81, 189–195 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 84. Jayakumar R, Menon D, Manzoor K, Nair SV, Tamura H. Biomedical applications of chitin and chitosan based nanomaterials – a short review. Carbohydr. Polym. 82(2), 227–232 (2010).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 85. Shih YRV, Chen CN, Tsai SW, Wang YJ, Lee OK. Growth of mesenchymal stem cells on electrospun type I collagen nanofibers. Stem Cells 24(11), 2391–2397 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 86. Yamanaka K, Mori M, Chiba A. Nanoarchitectured Co–Cr–Mo orthopedic implant alloys: nitrogen-enhanced nanostructural evolution and its effect on phase stability. Acta Biomater. 9(4), 6259–6267 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 87. Rahaman MN, Day DE, Bal BS et al. Bioactive glass in tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 7(6), 2355–2373 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 88. Kharaziha M, Fathi M. Synthesis and characterization of bioactive forsterite nanopowder. Ceram. Int. 35(6), 2449–2454 (2009).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 89. Cai Y, Tang R. Calcium phosphate nanoparticles in biomineralization and biomaterials. J. Mater. Chem. 18(32), 3775–3787 (2008).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 90. Jeffrey DS. One-and three-dimensional growth of hydroxyapatite nanowires during sol–gel–hydrothermal synthesis. (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 91. Chen H, Clarkson BH, Sun K, Mansfield JF. Self-assembly of synthetic hydroxyapatite nanorods into an enamel prism-like structure. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 288(1), 97–103 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 92. Zhou H, Lee J. Nanoscale hydroxyapatite particles for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 7(7), 2769–2781 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 93. Webster TJ, Ejiofor JU. Increased osteoblast adhesion on nanophase metals: Ti, Ti6Al4V, and CoCrMo. Biomaterials 25(19), 4731–4739 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 94. Abazari MF, Torabinejad S, Karizi SZ et al. Promoted osteogenic differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells using composited polycaprolactone/polyvinyl alcohol/carbopol nanofibrous scaffold. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 71, 103318 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 95. Giaconia MA, Dos Passos Ramos S, Araújo TA, De Almeida Cruz M, Renno AC, Braga ARC. Scaffold production and bone tissue healing using electrospinning: trends and gap of knowledge. Regen. Eng. Transl. Med. 8(4), 506–522 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 96. Yao Q, Cosme JG, Xu T et al. Three dimensional electrospun PCL/PLA blend nanofibrous scaffolds with significantly improved stem cells osteogenic differentiation and cranial bone formation. Biomaterials 115, 115–127 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 97. Dhand C, Ong ST, Dwivedi N et al. Bio-inspired in situ cross-linking and mineralization of electrospun collagen scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 104, 323–338 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 98. Cheng X, Liu Y-T, Si Y, Yu J, Ding B. Direct synthesis of highly stretchable ceramic nanofibrous aerogels via 3D reaction electrospinning. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 2637 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 99. Chen Z, Wang L, Chen C et al. NSC-derived extracellular matrix-modified GelMA hydrogel fibrous scaffolds for spinal cord injury repair. NPG Asia Mater. 14(1), 20 (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 100. Shafiei SS, Shavandi M, Ahangari G, Shokrolahi F. Electrospun layered double hydroxide/poly (ϵ-caprolactone) nanocomposite scaffolds for adipogenic differentiation of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Appl. Clay Sci. 127, 52–63 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 101. Belgheisi G, Nazarpak MH, Hashjin MS. Bone tissue engineering electrospun scaffolds based on layered double hydroxides with the ability to release vitamin D3: fabrication, characterization and in vitro study. Appl. Clay Sci. 185, 105434 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 102. Wu S, Wang J, Jin L, Li Y, Wang Z. Effects of polyacrylonitrile/MoS₂ composite nanofibers on the growth behavior of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 1(1), 337–343 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 103. Ma K, Liao C, Huang L et al. Electrospun PCL/MoS₂ nanofiber membranes combined with NIR-triggered photothermal therapy to accelerate bone regeneration. Small 17(51), 2104747 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 104. Di Pompo G, Liguori A, Carlini M et al. Electrospun fibers coated with nanostructured biomimetic hydroxyapatite: a new platform for regeneration at the bone interfaces. Biomater. Adv. 144, 213231 (2023).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 105. Okamoto M, John B. Synthetic biopolymer nanocomposites for tissue engineering scaffolds. Prog. Polym. Sci. 38(10–11), 1487–1503 (2013).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 106. Ye G, Bao F, Zhang X et al. Nanomaterial-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering and regeneration. Nanomedicine 15(20), 1995–2017 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 107. Asghar MS, Li J, Ahmed I et al. Antioxidant, and enhanced flexible nano porous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. Nano Select 2(7), 1356–1367 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 108. Wang M, Yao J, Shen S et al. A scaffold with zinc–whitlockite nanoparticles accelerates bone reconstruction by promoting bone differentiation and angiogenesis. Nano Res. 16(1), 757–770 (2023).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 109. Chen J, Ashames A, Buabeid MA, Fahelelbom KM, Ijaz M, Murtaza G. Nanocomposites drug delivery systems for the healing of bone fractures. Int. J. Pharm. 585, 119477 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 110. Gong T, Xie J, Liao J, Zhang T, Lin S, Lin Y. Nanomaterials and bone regeneration. Bone Res. 3, 15029 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 111. Han L, Wang M, Sun H et al. Porous titanium scaffolds with self-assembled micro/nano-hierarchical structure for dual functions of bone regeneration and anti-infection. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 105(12), 3482–3492 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 112. Gogoi S, Kumar M, Mandal BB, Karak N. A renewable resource based carbon dot decorated hydroxyapatite nanohybrid and its fabrication with waterborne hyperbranched polyurethane for bone tissue engineering. RSC Adv. 6(31), 26066–26076 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 113. Lu Y, Li L, Li M et al. Zero-dimensional carbon dots enhance bone regeneration, osteosarcoma ablation, and clinical bacterial eradication. Bioconjug. Chem. 29(9), 2982–2993 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 114. Ghorghi M, Rafienia M, Nasirian V, Bitaraf FS, Gharravi AM, Zarrabi A. Electrospun captopril-loaded PCL–carbon quantum dots nanocomposite scaffold: fabrication, characterization, and in vitro studies. Polym. Adv. Technol. 31(12), 3302–3315 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 115. Erdal NB, Hakkarainen M. Construction of bioactive and reinforced bioresorbable nanocomposites by reduced nano-graphene oxide carbon dots. Biomacromolecules 19(3), 1074–1081 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 116. Kim J, Kim HN, Lim K-T et al. Designing nanotopographical density of extracellular matrix for controlled morphology and function of human mesenchymal stem cells. Sci. Rep. 3(1), 3552 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 117. Kim J, Bae W-G, Choung H-W et al. Multiscale patterned transplantable stem cell patches for bone tissue regeneration. Biomaterials 35(33), 9058–9067 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 118. Cheng Y, Pang SW. Effects of nanopillars and surface coating on dynamic traction force. Microsystems Nanoengineer. 9, 6 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 119. Soriente A, Fasolino I, Gomez-Sánchez A et al. Chitosan/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite scaffolds to modulate osteogenic and inflammatory response. J. Biomed. Mater Res. A 110(2), 266–272 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 120. Xu Z, Qi X, Bao M et al. Biomineralization-inspired 3D printed bioactive glass nanocomposite scaffolds orchestrate diabetic bone regeneration by remodeling micromilieu. Bioact. Mater. 25, 239–255 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 121. Eivazzadeh-Keihan R, Maleki A, De La Guardia M et al. Carbon based nanomaterials for tissue engineering of bone: building new bone on small black scaffolds: a review. J. Adv. Res. 18, 185–201 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 122. Gwon Y, Park S, Kim W, Han T, Kim H, Kim J. Radially patterned transplantable biodegradable scaffolds as topographically defined contact guidance platforms for accelerating bone regeneration. J. Biol. Eng. 15(1), 12 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 123. Chen X, Xu Y, Cheng Y, Pang S. Engineered barriers regulate osteoblast cell migration in vertical direction. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 4459 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 124. Walmsley GG, Mcardle A, Tevlin R et al. Nanotechnology in bone tissue engineering. Nanomedicine 11(5), 1253–1263 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 125. Xue J, Wu T, Dai Y, Xia Y. Electrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: methods, materials, and applications. Chem. Rev. 119(8), 5298–5415 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 126. Kumar S, Nehra M, Kedia D, Dilbaghi N, Tankeshwar K, Kim K-H. Nanotechnology-based biomaterials for orthopaedic applications: recent advances and future prospects. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 106, 110154 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 127. Xuan L, Ju Z, Skonieczna M, Zhou PK, Huang R. Nanoparticles‐induced potential toxicity on human health: applications, toxicity mechanisms, and evaluation models. MedComm. 4(4), e327 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar