ReviewMicromachines2021
MiRNA-Nanofiber, the Next Generation of Bioactive Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: A Review.
Review in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functionalizing biomaterials for osseointegration - microRNAs at the crossroads of bone formation and immune modulation.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- MicroRNAs in periodontal disease: from pathogenic mechanisms and RANKL/OPG regulation to nanoparticle delivery and personalized medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Cancer Treatment Using Nanofibers: A Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Nanomaterial-based sensors for microbe detection: a review.Discover nano · 2024Review
- Chitosan/Sodium Tripolyphosphate/Sodium Alginate/miRNA-34c-5p Antagomir Scaffolds Promote the Functionality of Rabbit Cranial Parietal Repair.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
- The Effect of Polymeric Nanofibers Used for 3D-Printed Scaffolds on Cellular Activity in Tissue Engineering: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Review
- Bio-Activated PEEK: Promising Platforms for Improving Osteogenesis through Modulating Macrophage Polarization.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Non-coding RNA delivery for bone tissue engineering: Progress, challenges, and potential solutions.iScience · 2022Review
- Nanofiber Carriers of Therapeutic Load: Current Trends.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scaffold-based bone tissue engineering has been introduced as an alternative treatment option for bone grafting due to limitations in the allograft. Not only physical conditions but also biological conditions such as gene expression significantly impact bone regeneration. Scaffolds in composition with bioactive molecules such as miRNA mimics provide a platform to enhance migration, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells for bone regeneration. Among scaffolds, fibrous structures showed significant advantages in promoting osteogenic differentiation and bone regeneration via delivering bioactive molecules over the past decade. Here, we reviewed the bone and bone fracture healing considerations for the impact of miRNAs on bone regeneration. We also examined the methods used to improve miRNA mimics uptake by cells, the fabrication of fibrous scaffolds, and the effective delivery of miRNA mimics using fibrous scaffold and their processes for bone development. Finally, we offer our view on the principal challenges of miRNA mimics delivery by nanofibers for bone tissue engineering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.