ReviewCureus2025
Nanohydroxyapatite and Bioactive Glass Composites in Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Innovative Hydroxyapatite-Hydrogel Composites for Cartilage Regeneration.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Sintering Method-Dependent Hydroxyapatite Coatings Drive Enhanced Gingival Fibroblast Behavior on Titanium Implant Surfaces.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone tissue engineering is a pillar of regenerative medicine; traditional bone autografts, allografts, and metallic implants face difficulties due to donor site morbidity, risks of infection, and poor integration with the host bone. Nanohydroxyapatite (nHA) has become a popular synthetic tissue-engineered approach, although its brittleness and low fracture toughness limit its applications. This systematic review explores nHA-bioactive glass composites (HAGNs) as promising solutions for bone regeneration, analyzing their biocompatibility, osteoconductivity, and mechanical properties. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search strategy was employed across multiple databases from January 2000 to February 2024, using MeSH terms related to hydroxyapatite (HA), glass nanoparticles, and bone regeneration. Eligible studies included peer-reviewed articles reporting outcomes relevant to bone healing or tissue engineering using HA glass nanoparticles. The search yielded 57 records, with 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and selection. These studies explored various fabrication methods and consolidation techniques for nHA-based scaffolds, highlighting their improved biocompatibility, osteoconductivity, and potential for bone regeneration. Limitations involved long drying periods, the need for specific consolidation conditions, and more studies to confirm long-term performance. Findings underscored the importance of preserving key properties of nHA, such as low crystallinity and nanoscale dimensions, to mimic natural bone tissue effectively. nHA and bioactive glass composites show significant potential in bone tissue engineering. They offer the combination of biocompatibility, osteoconductivity, and mechanical strength necessary for effective bone regeneration. Further research is needed to facilitate the clinical translation of these 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.