ReviewMaterials today. Bio2025
Ultrasound-responsive hydrogels for bone and cartilage tissue engineering.
Review in Materials today. Bio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polymeric Smart Materials with Incorporated Small Molecules for Tissue Engineering: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Innovative Hydroxyapatite-Hydrogel Composites for Cartilage Regeneration.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Spatiotemporal immunomodulation with programmable biomaterials to promote musculoskeletal tissue regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Marine Algae Hydrogels as Emerging Biomaterials for Medicine.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Smart Stimulus-Responsive Hydrogels for Precision Drug Delivery in Tumours.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 3D-bioprinting for joint regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Ultrasound-responsive hydrogel microcarriers co-loading dexamethasone and urate oxidase for localized gout management.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound-responsive hydrogels have garnered significant attention for the treatment of bone and cartilage defects owing to their non-invasive regulation, precise drug delivery, and capacity to promote tissue regeneration. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current research landscape on ultrasound-responsive hydrogels, encompassing their preparation strategies, distinctive advantages, application domains, and therapeutic mechanisms. Preparation methods predominantly involve physical and chemical cross-linking techniques, while the response mechanisms are mediated by both thermal and non-thermal effects of ultrasound. Ultrasound endows hydrogels with unique characteristics, including non-invasiveness, spatiotemporal controllability, the facilitation of cell migration, and the potential for synergistic therapy. The integration of ultrasound-responsive hydrogels with emerging technologies-such as nanotechnology and genetic engineering-has expanded their applicability in the regeneration of bone and cartilage defects, as well as in the treatment of associated infections and tumors. The underlying biological mechanisms are diverse, involving key signalling pathways such as MAPK/ERK, BMP/Smad, and HIF-1α/VEGF. In summary, ultrasound-responsive hydrogels demonstrate considerable promise and distinct advantages in bone and cartilage tissue engineering. Nevertheless, several challenges remain, including the development of more versatile preparation strategies, more precise control over ultrasound parameters, and a deeper understanding of their mechanisms of action-all of which merit further investigation.
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.