ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Polyurethane-Chitosan Composites for Tissue Engineering: Novel Strategies, Therapeutic Potential and Limitations.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyurethane-chitosan (PU-CS) composites have emerged as promising biomaterials for tissue engineering because they combine the tunable mechanical properties, elasticity, processability, and degradation behavior of polyurethanes (PU) with the hydrophilicity, biological functionality, and antimicrobial properties of chitosan (CS). This review critically analyzes PU-CS composites with particular emphasis on the relationships between polymer composition, intermolecular interactions, phase organization, scaffold architecture, physicochemical properties, degradation, and biological performance. Particular attention is given to hydrogen bonding and other interfacial interactions governing composite organization, as well as to the effects of PU chemistry, CS molecular characteristics, PU/CS ratio, porosity, fiber organization, and fabrication strategy. Cross-study comparison indicates that no single PU/CS composition or scaffold architecture is universally optimal and that regenerative performance cannot be predicted from polymer ratio alone. Instead, composition must be considered together with hydration, mechanics, morphology, biodegradation kinetics, and tissue-specific requirements. Current evidence demonstrates promising cytocompatibility and regenerative potential of PU-CS systems, particularly in wound healing and selected bone, cardiovascular, and other tissue-engineering applications. However, the evidence base remains predominantly preclinical. Major barriers to translation include raw-material variability, insufficient standardization, limited long-term and large-animal data, manufacturing reproducibility, sterilization effects, scale-up, and regulatory complexity. Emerging approaches, including advanced biofabrication, computational modeling, and artificial intelligence, may further support PU-CS development, although their direct application to this material class remains limited. Overall, future progress will depend on shifting from descriptive optimization of individual scaffold properties toward reproducible, quantitatively characterized, and translationally oriented PU-CS biomaterial design. This review critically evaluates recent progress in PU-CS composite biomaterials by integrating evidence from fundamental polymer chemistry, materials engineering, biology, regenerative medicine, and translational biomaterials research.
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.