Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32204012›Full record

ReviewMaterials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications2020

Recent trends in the application of widely used natural and synthetic polymer nanocomposites in bone tissue regeneration.

Angshuman Bharadwaz, Ambalangodage C Jayasuriya

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 278 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
278citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

278 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Ion-Driven Regulation of CaAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

218 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Angshuman BharadwazBiomedical Engineering Program, Department of Bioengineering, College of Engineering, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Ambalangodage C JayasuriyaBiomedical Engineering Program, Department of Bioengineering, College of Engineering, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine and Life Sciences, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA. Electronic address: a.jayasuriya@utoledo.edu.

Funding

Multifunctional bone putty for craniomaxillofacial bone repairR01DE023356 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO HEALTH SCI CAMPUS · PI JAYASURIYA, AMBALANGODAGE CHAMPA · 2013 to 2017
$2.0M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE023356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of a biomaterial is to support the bone tissue regeneration process at the defect site and eventually degrade in situ and get replaced with the newly generated bone tissue. Nanocomposite biomaterials are a relatively new class of materials that incorporate a biopolymeric and biodegradable matrix structure with bioactive and easily resorbable fillers which are nano-sized. This article is a review of a few polymeric nanocomposite biomaterials which are potential candidates for bone tissue regeneration. These nanocomposites have been broadly classified into two groups viz. natural and synthetic polymer based. Natural polymer-based nanocomposites include materials fabricated through reinforcement of nanoparticles and/or nanofibers in a natural polymer matrix. Several widely used natural biopolymers, such as chitosan (CS), collagen (Col), cellulose, silk fibroin (SF), alginate, and fucoidan, have been reviewed regarding their present investigation on the incorporation of nanomaterial, biocompatibility, and tissue regeneration. Synthetic polymer-based nanocomposites that have been covered in this review include polycaprolactone (PCL), poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA), polyethylene glycol (PEG), poly (lactic acid) (PLA), and polyurethane (PU) based nanocomposites. An array of nanofillers, such as nano hydroxyapatite (nHA), nano zirconia (nZr), nano silica (nSi), silver nano particles (AgNPs), nano titanium dioxide (nTiO

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsBone and BonesBone RegenerationHumansNanocompositesPolymersTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsPolymersBiocompatibilityBiomaterialBone tissue regenerationNanocompositeNanofillers

Identifiers

PMID32204012
PMCPMC7433904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.