ReviewNanomedicine (London, England)2025
Emerging nanomaterials capable of effectively facilitating osteoblast maturation.
Review in Nanomedicine (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reimagining Spinal Surgery at the Nanoscale: Smart Implants, Targeted Therapies, and Translational Challenges.Biology · 2026Review
- Light-Switched Mesenchymal Stem Cells for In Situ Exosome Amplification in Craniofacial Bone Defect Reconstruction.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Fabrication techniques and biomedical applications of strontium-based nanofibers.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review of Metal Composite Bone Grafts in Preclinical Spinal Fusion Models.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient osteoblast maturation is essential for successful bone regeneration, yet achieving this goal remains challenging. This review explores the emerging role of nanomaterials in promoting osteoblast differentiation and bone formation. A literature search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection in February 2025, covering publications from 2014 to 2024 and limited to articles and proceedings. Keywords included "nanoparticles" and "osteoblast." Among the most extensively studied nanomaterials were hydroxyapatite, carbon-based, and bioactive glass nanoparticles (NPs). These materials influence osteoblast function through intracellular mechanisms, including enhanced mitochondrial activity, autophagy, and osteoinductive gene expression. Additionally, they modulate the extracellular microenvironment by mimicking the native bone matrix, releasing bioactive ions, and reducing inflammation and oxidative stress. Notably, several NP-based systems have reached clinical application, including Signafuse (a bioactive calcium phosphate composite), nanoLOCK (a nanostructured titanium spinal implant), and Vitoss (a synthetic bone graft of nanocrystalline calcium phosphate). More recently, multimodal NPs that integrate different NP types and combine surface roughness, ion release, and chemical cues offer synergistic effects. These materials provide a dual-function approach, targeting both intracellular processes and the bone microenvironment. Their ability to modulate inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular signaling underscores their translational potential in regenerative medicine and 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.