ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Bionanomaterials or Nanobiomaterials: Differences in Definitions and Applications.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating 3D bioprinting and neural stem cell therapy for central nervous system repair: implications for regenerative neurosurgery.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since the turn of the century, we have witnessed an extremely intensive development of biotechnology and nanotechnology, which, in terms of intensity can only be compared to the development of information technology and the resulting emergence of artificial intelligence. In the present review, we deliberately omit the development of information technology and artificial intelligence. Instead, our interest is focused on bionanomaterials and nanobiomaterials, their production and applications, and, in particular, the different meanings of these terms. We adopted an analysis of the literature published between January 2000 and May 2025, available in PubMed. The database was searched for selected areas: types (origin, structure, and function), manufacturing methods (chemical, physicochemical, and biological), and applications (medicine/pharmacy, textile technology, cosmetology, and agriculture/environment). Our findings revealed a significant increase in the number of publications for both terms, with nanobiomaterials predominating. The authors of the publications included in PubMed clearly outline the separation of meanings of both concepts, despite the lack of normative regulations in this regard. Nanoparticles are the most commonly represented type in the use of both terms, and drug delivery is a dominant application. However, it is worth noting the lack of nanobiomaterials in the agricultural/environmental application categories. Despite the enormous similarity between the terms "nanobiomaterials" and "bionanomaterials," both in terms of nomenclature and application, there is a significant difference resulting from the manufacturing technologies and applications used. The term "nanobiomaterials" should be assigned only to biomaterials, in accordance with the definition of a biomaterial, regardless of their manufacturing technology, while the term "bionanomaterials" should be applied to all products of bionanotechnology, excluding products used as biomaterials.
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.