Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33574225›Full record

ReviewBone research2021

On the road to smart biomaterials for bone research: definitions, concepts, advances, and outlook.

Carolina Montoya, Yu Du, Anthony L Gianforcaro, Santiago Orrego, Maobin Yang, Peter I Lelkes

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Bone research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed
–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

103 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

43 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

6 authors.

Carolina MontoyaDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA.
Yu DuDepartment of Endodontology, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA.
Anthony L GianforcaroBioengineering Department, College of Engineering, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA.
Santiago OrregoDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3683-6750
Maobin YangDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5367-1308
Peter I LelkesDepartment of Endodontology, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA. pilelkes@temple.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4954-3498

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The demand for biomaterials that promote the repair, replacement, or restoration of hard and soft tissues continues to grow as the population ages. Traditionally, smart biomaterials have been thought as those that respond to stimuli. However, the continuous evolution of the field warrants a fresh look at the concept of smartness of biomaterials. This review presents a redefinition of the term "Smart Biomaterial" and discusses recent advances in and applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissue restoration and regeneration. To clarify the use of the term "smart biomaterials", we propose four degrees of smartness according to the level of interaction of the biomaterials with the bio-environment and the biological/cellular responses they elicit, defining these materials as inert, active, responsive, and autonomous. Then, we present an up-to-date survey of applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissues, based on the materials' responses (external and internal stimuli) and their use as immune-modulatory biomaterials. Finally, we discuss the limitations and obstacles to the translation from basic research (bench) to clinical utilization that is required for the development of clinically relevant applications of these technologies.

Identifiers

PMID33574225
PMCPMC7878740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.