Synthetic bone transplantation has emerged in recent years as a highly promising strategy to address the major clinical challenge of bone tissue defects. In this field, bioactive glasses (BGs) have been widely recognized as a viable alternative to traditional bone substitutes due to their unique advantages, including favorable biocompatibility, pronounced bioactivity, excellent biodegradability, and superior osseointegration properties. This article begins with a comprehensive overview of the development and success of BGs in bone tissue engineering, and then focuses on their composite reinforcement systems with biodegradable metals, calcium-phosphorus (Ca-P)-based bioceramics, and biodegradable medical polymers, respectively. Moreover, the article outlines some frequently used manufacturing methods for three-dimensional BG-based bone bioscaffolds and highlights the remarkable achievements of these scaffolds in the field of bone defect repair in recent years. Lastly, based on the many potential challenges encountered in the preparation and application of BGs, a brief outlook on their future directions is presented. This review may help to provide new ideas for researchers to develop ideal BG-based bone substitutes for bone reconstruction and functional recovery.
Impact Statement
The combination of bioactive glasses (BGs) with other materials (biodegradable metals, Ca-P-based bioceramics, and biodegradable medical polymers) not only significantly enhances the mechanical properties, biocompatibility, osteoconductivity, and osteoinductivity of BGs, but also effectively regulates their biodegradation rate, offering more options and optimization for bone defect repair. In addition, the combination of the characteristics of BG-based composites and the advantages of three-dimensional preparation techniques highlights the great potential of BG-based bioscaffolds for regenerative repair of bone defects. This work contributes to the ongoing efforts in tissue engineering and lays the foundation for developing more effective bone substitutes for clinical applications.
ZhangX, KooS, KimJH, et al.Nanoscale materials-based platforms for the treatment of bone-related diseases. Matter, 2021; 4(9):2727–2764; doi: 10.1016/j.matt.2021.05.019
2.
XieC, YeJ, LiangR, et al.Advanced strategies of biomimetic tissue-engineered grafts for bone regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2021; 10(14):e2100408; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202100408
3.
ZhangQ, WuW, QianC, et al.Advanced biomaterials for repairing and reconstruction of mandibular defects. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 103:109858; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109858
4.
MengL, ZhengQ, ChenY, et al.Developing a teriparatide-loaded calcium silicate biomaterial ink for 3D printing of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(18):30631–30639; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.07.016
5.
FengP, ZhaoR, TangW, et al.Structural and functional adaptive artificial bone: Materials, fabrications, and properties. Adv Funct Materials, 2023; 33(23):2214726; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202214726
6.
ZhangQ, ZhouJ, ZhiP, et al.3D printing method for bone tissue engineering scaffold. Med Nov Technol Devices, 2023; 17:None; doi: 10.1016/j.medntd.2022.100205
7.
HuC, AshokD, NisbetDR, et al.Bioinspired surface modification of orthopedic implants for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 2019; 219:119366; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119366
8.
AnsariM. Bone tissue regeneration: Biology, strategies and interface studies. Prog Biomater, 2019; 8(4):223–237; doi: 10.1007/s40204-019-00125-z
9.
HolmesNP, RoohaniI, EntezariA, et al.Discovering an unknown territory using atom probe tomography: Elemental exchange at the bioceramic scaffold/bone tissue interface. Acta Biomater, 2023; 162:199–210; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.02.039
10.
BoyeteyMJB, TorgboS, SukyaiP. Bio-scaffold for bone tissue engineering with focus on bacterial cellulose, biological materials for hydroxyapatite synthesis and growth factors. Eur Polym J, 2023; 194:112168; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.112168
11.
ZhuX, WangC, BaiH, et al.Functionalization of biomimetic mineralized collagen for bone tissue engineering. Mater Today Bio, 2023; 20:100660; doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100660
12.
MotieeES, KarbasiS, BidramE, et al.Investigation of physical, mechanical and biological properties of polyhydroxybutyrate-chitosan/graphene oxide nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. Int J Biol Macromol, 2023; 247:125593; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125593
13.
GonzálezSG, VladMD, LópezJL, et al.Novel bio-inspired 3D porous scaffold intended for bone-tissue engineering: Design and in silico characterisation of histomorphometric, mechanical and mass-transport properties. Mater Design, 2023; 225:111467; doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2022.111467
14.
DiomedeF, D’AuroraM, GugliandoloA, et al.Biofunctionalized scaffold in bone tissue repair. Int J Mol Sci, 2018; 19(4):1022; doi: 10.3390/ijms19041022
15.
SchmitzSI, WidholzB, EssersC, et al.Superior biocompatibility and comparable osteoinductive properties: Sodium-reduced fluoride-containing bioactive glass belonging to the CaO-MgO-SiO2 system as a promising alternative to 45S5 bioactive glass. Bioact Mater, 2020; 5(1):55–65; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.12.005
16.
BainoF, NovajraG, Miguez-PachecoV, et al.Bioactive glasses: Special applications outside the skeletal system. J Non-Cryst Solids, 2016; 432:15–30; doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.02.015
17.
PalanisamyS, WangY. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticulate system: Synthesis, targeting, drug delivery and therapy in cancer. Dalton Trans, 2019; 48(26):9490–9515; doi: 10.1039/C9DT00459A
18.
AkramiN, GhanadM, KeilP, et al.Microstructural properties and in vitro dissolution of microporous bioactive 13-93B3 glass powders synthesized via solution combustion synthesis. J Non-Cryst Solids, 2023; 615:122425; doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2023.122425
19.
KayaS, CresswellM, BoccacciniAR. Mesoporous silica-based bioactive glasses for antibiotic-free antibacterial applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2018; 83:99–107; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.11.003
20.
DashPA, MohantyS, NayakSK. A review on bioactive glass, its modifications and applications in healthcare sectors. J Non-Cryst Solids, 2023; 614:122404; doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2023.122404
21.
LiF, JiangY, ChenM, et al.Effect of ZrO2 addition on in-vitro bioactivity and mechanical properties of SiO2-Na2O-CaO-P2O5 bioactive glass-ceramic. Ceram Int, 2022; 48(13):18541–18550; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.03.124
22.
ZhengK, KappM, BoccacciniAR. Protein interactions with bioactive glass surfaces: A review. Appl Mater Today, 2019; 15:350–371; doi: 10.1016/j.apmt.2019.02.003
23.
LeeS, ShirakiS, NagataF, et al.Structure and dissolution behavior of boron-containing calcium phosphate invert glasses. J Non-Cryst Solids, 2022; 590:121690; doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2022.121690
24.
TaşarC, ErcanB. Fabrication and biological properties of magnetic bioactive glass nanoparticles. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(8):12925–12933; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.12.164
25.
JulierZ, ParkAJ, BriquezPS, et al.Promoting tissue regeneration by modulating the immune system. Acta Biomater, 2017; 53:13–28; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.01.056
26.
VasconcelosDP, AguasAP, BarbosaMA, et al.The inflammasome in host response to biomaterials: Bridging inflammation and tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater, 2019; 83:1–12; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.056
27.
BiZ, CaiY, ShiX, et al.Macrophage-mediated immunomodulation in biomaterial-assisted bone repair: Molecular insights and therapeutic prospects. Chem Eng J, 2024; 488:150631; doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.150631
28.
ZhuY, MaZ, KongL, et al.Modulation of macrophages by bioactive glass/sodium alginate hydrogel is crucial in skin regeneration enhancement. Biomaterials, 2020; 256:120216; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120216
29.
ZhaoF, XieW, ZhangW, et al.3D printing nanoscale bioactive glass scaffolds enhance osteoblast migration and extramembranous osteogenesis through stimulating immunomodulation. Adv Healthc Mater, 2018; 7(16):e1800361; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201800361
30.
HuoS, LyuZ, SuX, et al.Formation of a novel Cu-containing bioactive glass nano-topography coating with strong bactericidal capability and bone regeneration. Compos Part B-Eng, 2023; 253:110521; doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110521
31.
ChenD, LiangZ, SuZ, et al.Selenium-doped mesoporous bioactive glass regulates macrophage metabolism and polarization by scavenging ROS and promotes bone regeneration in vivo. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2023; 15(29):34378–34396; doi: 10.1021/acsami.3c03446
32.
MironRJ, BosshardtDD. OsteoMacs: Key players around bone biomaterials. Biomaterials, 2016; 82:1–19; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.12.017
33.
SadowskaJM, GinebraMP. Inflammation and biomaterials: Role of the immune response in bone regeneration by inorganic scaffolds. J Mater Chem B, 2020; 8(41):9404–9427; doi: 10.1039/d0tb01379j
34.
NiuY, WangZ, ShiY, et al.Modulating macrophage activities to promote endogenous bone regeneration: Biological mechanisms and engineering approaches. Bioact Mater, 2021; 6(1):244–261; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.08.012
35.
SchlundtC, FischerH, BucherCH, et al.The multifaceted roles of macrophages in bone regeneration: A story of polarization, activation and time. Acta Biomater, 2021; 133:46–57; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.04.052
36.
ZhengK, NiuW, LeiB, et al.Immunomodulatory bioactive glasses for tissue regeneration. Acta Biomater, 2021; 133:168–186; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.08.023
37.
LeeJ, ByunH, PerikamanaSKM, et al.Current advances in immunomodulatory biomaterials for bone regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2019; 8(4):e1801106; doi: 10.1002/adhm.201801106
38.
QiX, LiuY, YinX, et al.Surface-based modified 3D-printed BG/GO scaffolds promote bone defect repair through bone immunomodulation. Compos Part B-Eng, 2023; 257:110673; doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110673
39.
LiS, ZhangL, LiuC, et al.Spontaneous immunomodulation and regulation of angiogenesis and osteogenesis by Sr/Cu-borosilicate glass (BSG) bone cement to repair critical bone defects. Bioact Mater, 2023; 23:101–117; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.10.021
40.
BaiX, LiuW, XuL, et al.Sequential macrophage transition facilitates endogenous bone regeneration induced by Zn-doped porous microcrystalline bioactive glass. J Mater Chem B, 2021; 9(12):2885–2898; doi: 10.1039/d0tb02884c
41.
HenchLL, JonesJR. Bioactive glasses: Frontiers and challenges. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2015; 3:194; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00194
42.
KunischE, FiehnLA, SaurM, et al.A comparative in vitro and in vivo analysis of the biological properties of the 45S5-, 1393-, and 0106-B1-bioactive glass compositions using human bone marrow-derived stromal cells and a rodent critical size femoral defect model. Biomater Adv, 2023; 153:213521; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213521
43.
RahmatiM, MozafariM. Selective contribution of bioactive glasses to molecular and cellular pathways. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2020; 6(1):4–20; doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b01078
44.
BrinkM, TurunenT, HapponenRP, et al.Compositional dependence of bioactivity of glasses in the system Na2O-K2O-MgO-CaO-B2O3-P2O5-SiO2. J Biomed Mater Res, 1997; 37(1):114–121; doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199710)37:1<114::AID-JBM14>3.3.CO;2-7
45.
HuangW, DayDE, KittiratanapiboonK, et al.Kinetics and mechanisms of the conversion of silicate (45S5), borate, and borosilicate glasses to hydroxyapatite in dilute phosphate solutions. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2006; 17(7):583–596; doi: 10.1007/s10856-006-9220-z
46.
IbrahiNF, MohamadH, NoorSNFM, et al.Melt-derived bioactive glass based on SiO2-CaO-Na2O-P2O5 system fabricated at lower melting temperature. J Alloy Compd, 2018; 732:603–612; doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.10.235
47.
ShearerA, MontazerianM, MauroJC. Modern definition of bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. J Non-Cryst Solids, 2023; 608:122228; doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2023.122228
48.
El-RashidyAA, WalyG, GadA, et al.Preparation and in vitro characterization of silver-doped bioactive glass nanoparticles fabricated using a sol-gel process and modified Stöber method. J Non-Cryst Solids, 2018; 483:26–36; doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2017.12.044
49.
CoelhoSAR, AlmeidaJC, UnalanI, et al.Cellular response to sol-gel hybrid materials releasing boron and calcium ions. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2021; 7(2):491–506; doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c01546
50.
JonesJR. Review of bioactive glass: From Hench to hybrids. Acta Biomater, 2013; 9(1):4457–4486; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.08.023
51.
SaravanapavanP, JonesJR, PryceRS, et al.Bioactivity of gel-glass powders in the CaO-SiO2 system: A comparison with ternary (CaO-P2O5-SiO2) and quaternary glasses (SiO2-CaO-P2O5-Na2O). J Biomed Mater Res A, 2003; 66(1):110–119; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.10532
52.
KargozarS, HamzehlouS, BainoF. Can bioactive glasses be useful to accelerate the healing of epithelial tissues? Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 97:1009–1020; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.028
53.
WangH, HouX, ZhangW, et al.The influencing mechanism of phosphorus component on network structure and bioactivity of bioactive glass. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2023; 140:105719; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.105719
54.
VafaE, Bazargan-LariR, BahrololoomME. Synthesis of 45S5 bioactive glass-ceramic using the sol-gel method, catalyzed by low concentration acetic acid extracted from homemade vinegar. J Mater Res Technol, 2021; 10:1427–1436; doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.12.093
55.
BenedettiF, AmidaniL, CresiJSP, et al.Role of cerium oxide in bioactive glasses during catalytic dissociation of hydrogen peroxide. Phys Chem Chem Phys, 2018; 20(36):23507–23514; doi: 10.1039/C8CP02271B
56.
ZhengB, LinX, ZhangX, et al.Emerging functional porous polymeric and carbonaceous materials for environmental treatment and energy storage. Adv Funct Materials, 2020; 30(41):1907006; doi: 10.1002/adfm.201907006
57.
PereiraMM, ClarkAE, HenchLL. Effect of texture on the rate of hydroxyapatite formation on gel-silica surface. J Am Ceram Soc, 1995; 78(9):2463–2468; doi: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1995.tb08686.x
58.
BainoF, FiumeE, MiolaM, et al.Bioactive sol-gel glasses: Processing, properties, and applications. Int J Applied Ceramic Tech, 2018; 15(4):841–860; doi: 10.1111/ijac.12873
59.
GaoC, GaoQ, BaoX, et al.Preparation and in vitro bioactivity of novel mesoporous borosilicate bioactive glass nanofibers. J Am Ceram Soc, 2011; 94(9):2841–2845; doi: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2011.04434.x
60.
KimH, KimHE, KnowlesJC. Production and potential of bioactive glass nanofibers as a next-generation biomaterial. Adv Funct Materials, 2006; 16(12):1529–1535; doi: 10.1002/adfm.200500750
61.
DeliormanliA. Preparation, in vitro mineralization and osteoblast cell response of electrospun 13-93 bioactive glass nanofibers. Mater Sci Eng C, 2015; 53:262–271; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.04.037
62.
NagrathM, AlhalawaniA, YazdiAR, et al.Bioactive glass fiber fabrication via a combination of sol-gel process with electro-spinning technique. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 101:521–538; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.04.003
63.
NawazQ, de Pablos-MartínA, SilvaJMDE, et al.New insights into the crystallization process of sol-gel-derived 45S5 bioactive glass. J Am Ceram Soc, 2020; 103(8):4234–4247; doi: 10.1111/jace.17124
HenchLL. Bioceramics: From concept to clinic. J Am Ceram Soc, 1991; 74(7):1487–1510; doi: 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb07132.x
66.
NeelEAA, SoumyaS, OyhanartSR, et al.Utilizing Fe2O3 in phosphate-based glasses to enhance biocompatibility and gamma-ray absorption characteristics: A step towards understanding of Na2O/Fe2O3 translocation in P2O5-CaO-Na2O glass system. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(11):16615–16624; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.02.019
MasseraJ, Vassallo-BreillotM, TörngrenB, et al.Effect of CeO2 doping on thermal, optical, structural and in vitro properties of a phosphate based bioactive glass. J Non-Cryst Solids, 2014; 402:28–35; doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2014.05.006
69.
KargozarS, BainoF, HamzehlouS, et al.Bioactive glasses: Sprouting angiogenesis in tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol, 2018; 36(4):430–444; doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.12.003
70.
AslamAA, AkramJ, MehmoodRA, et al.Boron-based bioactive glasses: Properties, processing, characterization and applications. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(12):19595–19605; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.03.164
71.
BiL, JungS, DayD, et al.Evaluation of bone regeneration, angiogenesis, and hydroxyapatite conversion in critical-sized rat calvarial defects implanted with bioactive glass scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2012; 100(12):3267–3275; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34272
72.
Dos SantosVR, CamposTMB, ThimGP, et al.Glycol thermal synthesis of the 45B5 bioactive borate glass: Structural, physical, and apatite mineralization in vitro. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(7):11236–11248; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.11.321
73.
HoppeA, GüldalNS, BoccacciniAR. A review of the biological response to ionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. Biomaterials, 2011; 32(11):2757–2774; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.004
74.
O’NeillE, AwaleG, DaneshmandiL, et al.The roles of ions on bone regeneration. Drug Discov Today, 2018; 23(4):879–890; doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.01.049
75.
CarlisleEM. Silicon: A requirement in bone formation independent of vitamin D1. Calcif Tissue Int, 1981; 33(1):27–34; doi: 10.1007/BF02409409
76.
CarlisleEM. Silicon: A possible factor in bone calcification. Science, 1970; 167(3916):279–280; doi: 10.1126/science.167.3916.279
77.
DamenJJ, Ten CateJM. Silica-induced precipitation of calcium phosphate in the presence of inhibitors of hydroxyapatite formation. J Dent Res, 1992; 71(3):453–457; doi: 10.1177/00220345920710030601
78.
JugdaohsinghR, TuckerKL, QiaoN, et al.Dietary silicon intake is positively associated with bone mineral density in men and premenopausal women of the framingham offspring cohort. J Bone Miner Res, 2004; 19(2):297–307; doi: 10.1359/JBMR.0301225
79.
NielsenFH, PoellotR. Dietary silicon affects bone turnover differently in ovariectomized and sham-operated growing rats. J Trace Elements Exper Med, 2004; 17(3):137–149; doi: 10.1002/jtra.20004
80.
ReffittDM, OgstonN, JugdaohsinghR, et al.Orthosilicic acid stimulates collagen type 1 synthesis and osteoblastic differentiation in human osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Bone, 2003; 32(2):127–135; doi: 10.1016/S8756-3282(02)00950-X
81.
MaenoS, NikiY, MatsumotoH, et al.The effect of calcium ion concentration on osteoblast viability, proliferation and differentiation in monolayer and 3D culture. Biomaterials, 2005; 26(23):4847–4855; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.006
82.
MariePJ. The calcium-sensing receptor in bone cells: A potential therapeutic target in osteoporosis. Bone, 2010; 46(3):571–576; doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.07.082
83.
ValerioP, PereiraMM, GoesAM, et al.Effects of extracellular calcium concentration on the glutamate release by bioactive glass (BG60S) preincubated osteoblasts. Biomed Mater, 2009; 4(4):045011; doi: 10.1088/1748-6041/4/4/045011
84.
PawarV, ShindeV. Bioglass and hybrid bioactive material: A review on the fabrication, therapeutic potential and applications in wound healing. Hybrid Advances, 2024; 6:100196; doi: 10.1016/j.hybadv.2024.100196
85.
DashnyamK, El-FiqiA, BuitragoJ, et al.A mini review focused on the proangiogenic role of silicate ions released from silicon-containing biomaterials. J Tissue Eng, 2017; 8:2041731417707339; doi: 10.1177/2041731417707339
86.
GorustovichA, RoetherJ, BoccacciniA. Effect of bioactive glasses on angiogenesis: A review of in vitro and in vivo evidences. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2010; 16(2):199–207; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0416
87.
El-KadyAM, AliAF, RizkRA, et al.Synthesis, characterization and microbiological response of silver doped bioactive glass nanoparticles. Ceram Int, 2012; 38(1):177–188; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2011.05.158
88.
LiF, LiuP, JiangJ, et al.Physico-mechanical properties, hydroxyapatite conversion, biodegradability and antibacterial activity studies of melt-derived BGs based on SiO2-CaO-Na2O-P2O5 quaternary system. Ceram Int, 2024; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.10.162
89.
HasaninM, El-HenawyA, EisaWH, et al.Nano-amino acid cellulose derivatives: Eco-synthesis, characterization, and antimicrobial properties. Int J Biol Macromol, 2019; 132:963–969; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.024
90.
DeliormanliAM. Sol-gel synthesis of borate-based 13-93B3 bioactive glass powders for biomedical applications. Mater Technol, 2021; 37(11):1808–1817; doi: 10.1080/10667857.2021.1988039
91.
BengisuM. Borate glasses for scientific and industrial applications: A review. J Mater Sci, 2016; 51(5):2199–2242; doi: 10.1007/s10853-015-9537-4
92.
BalasubramanianP, GrünewaldA, DetschR, et al.Ion release, hydroxyapatite conversion, and cytotoxicity of boron-containing bioactive glass scaffolds. Int J of Appl Glass Sci, 2016; 7(2):206–215; doi: 10.1111/ijag.12206
93.
ChenR, LiQ, ZhangQ, et al.Nanosized HCA-coated borate bioactive glass with improved wound healing effects on rodent model. Chem Eng J, 2021; 426:130299; doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.130299
94.
LiF, ChenX, LiuP. A review on three-dimensional printed silicate-based bioactive glass/biodegradable medical synthetic polymer composite scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2023; 29(3):244–259; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2022.0140
95.
JodatiH, EvisZ, TezcanerA, et al.3D porous bioceramic based boron-doped hydroxyapatite/baghdadite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2023; 140:105722; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.105722
96.
Del CampoR, SavoiniB, MuñozA, et al.Processing and mechanical characteristics of magnesium-hydroxyapatite metal matrix biocomposites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2017; 69:135–143; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.12.023
97.
SonatkarJ, KandasubramanianB. Bioactive glass with biocompatible polymers for bone applications. Eur Polym J, 2021; 160:110801; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2021.110801
98.
PiattiE, VernéE, MiolaM. Synthesis and characterization of sol-gel bioactive glass nanoparticles doped with boron and copper. Ceram Int, 2022; 48(10):13706–13718; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.01.252
99.
JunJ. Damping behaviors of as-cast and solution-treated AZ91-Ca magnesium alloys. J Alloy Compd, 2014; 610:169–172; doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2014.04.214
100.
MotavallianP, RabieeSM, AvalHJ. Effect of solution treatment of AZ91 alloy on microstructure, mechanical properties and corrosion behavior of friction stir back extruded AZ91/bioactive glass composite. J Mater Res Technol, 2023; 25:6992–7007; doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.07.123
101.
YinY, HuangQ, LiangL, et al.In vitro degradation behavior and cytocompatibility of ZK30/bioactive glass composites fabricated by selective laser melting for biomedical applications. J Alloy Compd, 2019; 785:38–45; doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.01.165
102.
BuchtíkM, KrystynováM, MásilkoJ, et al.The effect of heat treatment on properties of Ni-P coatings deposited on a AZ91 magnesium alloy. Coatings, 2019; 9(7):461; doi: 10.3390/coatings9070461
103.
EsmailyM, SvenssonJE, FajardoS, et al.Fundamentals and advances in magnesium alloy corrosion. Prog Mater Sci, 2017; 89:92–193; doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.04.011
104.
PezzatoL, BrunelliK, DiodatiS, et al.Microstructural and corrosion properties of hydroxyapatite containing PEO coating produced on AZ31 Mg alloy. Materials (Basel), 2021; 14(6):1531; doi: 10.3390/ma14061531
105.
RadhaR, SreekanthD. Insight of magnesium alloys and composites for orthopedic implant applications – a review. J Magnes Alloy, 2017; 5(3):286–312; doi: 10.1016/j.jma.2017.08.003
106.
DongJ, LinT, ShaoH, et al.Advances in degradation behavior of biomedical magnesium alloys: A review. J Alloy Compd, 2022; 908:164600; doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2022.164600
107.
DuttaS, DeviKB, MandalS, et al.In vitro corrosion and cytocompatibility studies of hot press sintered magnesium-bioactive glass composite. Materialia, 2019; 5:100245; doi: 10.1016/j.mtla.2019.100245
108.
HuanZ, LeeflangS, ZhouJ, et al.In vitro degradation behavior and bioactivity of magnesium-Bioglass® composites for orthopedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2012; 100(2):437–446; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31968
109.
MohammadiH, HafeziM, NezafatiN, et al.Bioinorganics in bioactive calcium silicate ceramics for bone tissue repair: Bioactivity and biological properties. J Ceram Sci Technol, 2014; 5(1):1–12; doi: 10.4416/JC5T2013-00027
110.
DenryI, KuhnLT. Design and characterization of calcium phosphate ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Dent Mater, 2016; 32(1):43–53; doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.008
111.
Dos SantosTMBK, MerliniC, AragonesÁ, et al.Manufacturing and characterization of plates for fracture fixation of bone with biocomposites of poly (lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) with calcium phosphates bioceramics. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 103:109728; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.05.013
112.
SalimiE. Functionally graded calcium phosphate bioceramics: An overview of preparation and properties. Ceram Int, 2020; 46(12):19664–19668; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.05.077
OsbornJF, NeweselyH. The material science of calcium phosphate ceramics. Biomaterials, 1980; 1(2):108–111; doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(80)90009-5
115.
EbrahimiM, BotelhoMG, DorozhkinSV. Biphasic calcium phosphates bioceramics (HA/TCP): Concept, physicochemical properties and the impact of standardization of study protocols in biomaterials research. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2017; 71:1293–1312; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.11.039
116.
YaoA, WangD, HuangW, et al.In vitro bioactive characteristics of borate-based glasses with controllable degradation behavior. J Am Ceram Soc, 2007; 90(1):303–306; doi: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01358.x
117.
ZakariaSM, SharifSH, OthmanMR, et al.Nanophase hydroxyapatite as a biomaterial in advanced hard tissue engineering: A review. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2013; 19(5):431–441; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2012.062
118.
MonmaturapojN, UanleeT, NampuksaK, et al.Preparation and properties of porous biphasic calcium phosphate/bioactive glass composite scaffolds for biomedical applications. Mater Today Commun, 2022; 33:104993; doi: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.104993
119.
PiliaM, GudaT, ApplefordM. Development of composite scaffolds for load-bearing segmental bone defects. Biomed Res Int, 2013; 2013:458253; doi: 10.1155/2013/458253
120.
CarrodeguasRG, De AzaS. α-Tricalcium phosphate: Synthesis, properties and biomedical applications. Acta Biomater, 2011; 7(10):3536–3546; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.06.019
FengS, HeF, FangX, et al.Enhancement of mechanical strength and osteogenesis, and inhibition of osteoclastic activity for β-tricalcium phosphate bioceramics by incorporating calcium silicate and magnesium-strontium phosphate. Ceram Int, 2021; 47(17):24191–24197; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.05.130
123.
Forero-SossaPA, Salazar-MartinezJD, Barajas-AguilarVJ, et al.Effect of S53P4 bioactive glass content on structural and in-vitro behavior of hydroxyapatite/bioactive glass mixtures prepared by mechanical milling. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(3):4322–4330; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.09.317
124.
SpirandeliBR, RibasRG, AmaralSS, et al.Incorporation of 45S5 bioglass via sol-gel in β-TCP scaffolds: Bioactivity and antimicrobial activity evaluation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2021; 131:112453; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2021.112453
125.
YuX, CaiS, ZhangZ, et al.Bioactive pyrophosphate glass/beta-tricalcium phosphate composite with high mechanical properties. Mater Sci Eng C, 2008; 28(7):1138–1143; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2007.08.001
126.
BellucciD, SolaA, AnesiA, et al.Bioactive glass/hydroxyapatite composites: Mechanical properties and biological evaluation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2015; 51:196–205; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.02.041
127.
AngioniD, OrrùR, CaoG, et al.Bioactivity enhancement by a ball milling treatment in novel bioactive glass-hydroxyapatite composites produced by spark plasma sintering. J Eur Ceram Soc, 2023; 43(3):1220–1229; doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2022.10.077
128.
AvcuE, BastanFE, GuneyM, et al.Biodegradable polymer matrix composites containing graphene-related materials for antibacterial applications: A critical review. Acta Biomater, 2022; 151:1–44; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.07.048
129.
MukherjeeC, VargheseD, KrishnaJS, et al.Recent advances in biodegradable polymers – Properties, applications and future prospects. Eur Polym J, 2023; 192:112068; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.112068
130.
AvcuE, BaştanFE, AbdullahHZ, et al.Electrophoretic deposition of chitosan-based composite coatings for biomedical applications: A review. Prog Mater Sci, 2019; 103:69–108; doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2019.01.001
MoholkarDN, SadalagePS, PeixotoD, et al.Recent advances in biopolymer-based formulations for wound healing applications. Eur Polym J, 2021; 160:110784; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2021.110784
133.
PiresPC, Mascarenhas-MeloF, PedrosaK, et al.Polymer-based biomaterials for pharmaceutical and biomedical applications: A focus on topical drug administration. Eur Polym J, 2023; 187:111868; doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.111868
134.
MeganathanI, SundarapandianA, ShanmugamG, et al.Three-dimensional tailor-made collagen-like proteins hydrogel for tissue engineering applications. Biomater Adv, 2022; 139:212997; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.212997
135.
LinJ, ShiY, MenY, et al.Mechanical roles in formation of oriented collagen fibers. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2020; 26(2):116–128; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2019.024
136.
EspinalesC, Romero-PeñaM, CalderónG, et al.Collagen, protein hydrolysates and chitin from by-products of fish and shellfish: An overview. Heliyon, 2023; 9(4):e14937; doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14937
137.
GajbhiyeS, WairkarS. Collagen fabricated delivery systems for wound healing: A new roadmap. Biomater Adv, 2022; 142:213152; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.213152
138.
TrojanowskaM, LeRoyEC, EckesB, et al.Pathogenesis of fibrosis: Type 1 collagen and the skin. J Mol Med (Berl), 1998; 76(3–4):266–274; doi: 10.1007/s001090050216
139.
HuangY, GaoP, QinT, et al.Delayed inhibition of collagen deposition by targeting bone morphogenetic protein 1 promotes recovery after spinal cord injury. Matrix Biol, 2023; 118:69–91; doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2023.03.006
140.
WaniSUD, AliM, MehdiS, et al.A review on chitosan and alginate-based microcapsules: Mechanism and applications in drug delivery systems. Int J Biol Macromol, 2023; 248:125875; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125875
141.
WangJ, LiuS, HuangJ, et al.Alginate: Microbial production, functionalization, and biomedical applications. Int J Biol Macromol, 2023; 242(Pt 3):125048; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125048
142.
Jiménez-GómezCP, CeciliaJA. Chitosan: A natural biopolymer with a wide and varied range of applications. Molecules, 2020; 25(17):3981; doi: 10.3390/molecules25173981
143.
DivyaK, SmithaV, JishaMS. Antifungal, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of chitosan nanoparticles and its use as an edible coating on vegetables. Int J Biol Macromol, 2018; 114:572–577; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.03.130
144.
VictorRD, SantosAMD, de SousaBV, et al.A review on chitosan’s uses as biomaterial: Tissue engineering, drug delivery systems and cancer treatment. Materials, 2020; 13(21):4995; doi: 10.3390/ma13214995
145.
ÖzelC, ÇevlikCB, ÖzarslanAC, et al.Evaluation of biocomposite putty with strontium and zinc co-doped 45S5 bioactive glass and sodium hyaluronate. Int J Biol Macromol, 2023; 242(Pt 2):124901; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124901
146.
ZarghamiV, GhorbaniM, BagheriKP, et al.Prolongation of bactericidal efficiency of chitosan-Bioactive glass coating by drug controlled release. Prog Org Coat, 2020; 139:105440; doi: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2019.105440
147.
DhinasekaranD, VimalrajS, RajendranAR, et al.Bio-inspired multifunctional collagen/electrospun bioactive glass membranes for bone tissue engineering applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2021; 126:111856; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111856
148.
MagriAMP, FernandesKR, UenoFR, et al.Osteoconductive properties of two different bioactive glass forms (powder and fiber) combined with collagen. Appl Surf Sci, 2017; 423:557–565; doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.06.152
149.
KeshavarzM, AlizadehP. On the role of alginate coating on the mechanical and biological properties of 58S bioactive glass scaffolds. Int J Biol Macromol, 2021; 167:947–961; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.051
150.
MartinsT, OliveiraAAR, OliveiraAC, et al.Novel 3D composites with highly flexible behavior based on chitosan and bioactive glass for biomedical applications. Mater Chem Phys, 2017; 189:1–11; doi: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2016.12.012
151.
LouX, DetrembleurC, JérômeR. Novel aliphatic polyesters based on functional cyclic (di) esters. Macromol Rapid Commun, 2003; 24(2):161–172; doi: 10.1002/marc.200390029
152.
TianH, TangZ, ZhuangX, et al.Biodegradable synthetic polymers: Preparation, functionalization and biomedical application. Prog Polym Sci, 2012; 37(2):237–280; doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2011.06.004
BudakK, SogutO, SezerUA. A review on synthesis and biomedical applications of polyglycolic acid. J Polym Res, 2020; 27(8):208; doi: 10.1007/s10965-020-02187-1
155.
ManoJF, SousaRA, BoeselLF, et al.Bioinert, biodegradable and injectable polymeric matrix composites for hard tissue replacement: State of the art and recent developments. Compos Sci Technol, 2004; 64(6):789–817; doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2003.09.001
156.
Alizadeh-OsgoueiM, LiY, WenC. A comprehensive review of biodegradable synthetic polymer-ceramic composites and their manufacture for biomedical applications. Bioact Mater, 2019; 4(1):22–36; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.11.003
157.
UleryBD, NairLS, LaurencinCT. Biomedical applications of biodegradable polymers. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys, 2011; 49(12):832–864; doi: 10.1002/polb.22259
158.
BranniganRP, DoveAP. Synthesis, properties and biomedical applications of hydrolytically degradable materials based on aliphatic polyesters and polycarbonates. Biomater Sci, 2016; 5(1):9–21; doi: 10.1039/c6bm00584e
159.
DziadekM, DziadekK, ChecinskaK, et al.PCL and PCL/bioactive glass biomaterials as carriers for biologically active polyphenolic compounds: Comprehensive physicochemical and biological evaluation. Bioact Mater, 2021; 6(6):1811–1826; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.11.025
160.
ObisesanOS, AjiboyeTO, MhlangaSD, et al.Biomedical applications of biodegradable polycaprolactone-functionalized magnetic iron oxides nanoparticles and their polymer nanocomposites. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2023; 227:113342; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113342
161.
DziadekM, DziadekK, ChecinskaK, et al.Polyphenolic compounds affect the long-term degradation behaviour of polymer and composite materials based on PCL, PLGA, and bioactive glass. Sustain Mater Techno, 2023; 35:e00568; doi: 10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00568
162.
DziadekM, ZagrajczukB, MenaszekE, et al.Poly(ε-caprolactone)-based membranes with tunable physicochemical, bioactive and osteoinductive properties. J Mater Sci, 2017; 52(22):12960–12980; doi: 10.1007/s10853-017-1424-8
163.
HouaouiA, LyyraI, AgnielR, et al.Dissolution, bioactivity and osteogenic properties of composites based on polymer and silicate or borosilicate bioactive glass. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2020; 107:110340; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110340
164.
MagriAMP, FernandesKR, AssisL, et al.Incorporation of collagen and PLGA in bioactive glass: In vivo biological evaluation. Int J Biol Macromol, 2019; 134:869–881; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.05.090
165.
WangC, MengC, ZhangZ, et al.3D printing of polycaprolactone/bioactive glass composite scaffolds for in situ bone repair. Ceram Int, 2022; 48(6):7491–7499; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.11.293
166.
XuY, HuY, FengP, et al.Drug loading/release and bioactivity research of a mesoporous bioactive glass/polymer scaffold. Ceram Int, 2019; 45(14):18003–18013; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.06.019
167.
DehnaviSS, MehdikhaniM, RafieniaM, et al.Preparation and in vitro evaluation of polycaprolactone/PEG/bioactive glass nanopowders nanocomposite membranes for GTR/GBR applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2018; 90:236–247; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.04.065
168.
MisraSK, MohnD, BrunnerTJ, et al.Comparison of nanoscale and microscale bioactive glass on the properties of P(3HB)/Bioglass® composites. Biomaterials, 2008; 29(12):1750–1761; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.12.040
169.
LiW, PastramaMI, DingY, et al.Ultrasonic elasticity determination of 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds: Influence of polymer coating and crosslinking treatment. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2014; 40:85–94; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.08.010
170.
MoteallehA, EqtesadiS, PajaresA, et al.Enhancing the mechanical and in vitro performance of robocast bioglass scaffolds by polymeric coatings: Effect of polymer composition. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2018; 84:35–45; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.04.022
171.
DurgalakshmiD, RakkeshRA, BalakumarS. Stacked Bioglass/TiO2 nanocoatings on titanium substrate for enhanced osseointegration and its electrochemical corrosion studies. Appl Surf Sci, 2015; 349:561–569; doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.04.142
172.
BagciC, BastanFE, NawazQ, et al.Effects of silicon nitride (Si3N4) incorporation on physicochemical, bioactivity and antibacterial properties of 45S5 bioactive glass. Ceram Int 2024; 50(23):50200–50212; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.09.367
173.
SchaustenMC, MengDC, TelleR, et al.Electrophoretic deposition of carbon nanotubes and bioactive glass particles for bioactive composite coatings. Ceram Int, 2010; 36(1):307–312; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2009.09.008
174.
WuC, ChangJ. Mesoporous bioactive glasses: Structure characteristics, drug/growth factor delivery and bone regeneration application. Interface Focus, 2012; 2(3):292–306; doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2011.0121
175.
LeachJK, KaiglerD, WangZ, et al.Coating of VEGF-releasing scaffolds with bioactive glass for angiogenesis and bone regeneration. Biomaterials, 2006; 27(17):3249–3255; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.033
176.
WuC, FanW, ChangJ, et al.Mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for efficient delivery of vascular endothelial growth factor. J Biomater Appl, 2013; 28(3):367–374; doi: 10.1177/0885328212453635
177.
CourtlandHW, ElisS, WuY, et al.Serum IGF-1 affects skeletal acquisition in a temporal and compartment-specific manner. PLoS One, 2011; 6(3):e14762; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014762
178.
WesthauserF, ZimmermannG, MoghaddamS, et al.Reaming in treatment of non-unions in long bones: Cytokine expression course as a tool for evaluation of non-union therapy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2015; 135(8):1107–1116; doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2253-3
179.
LalzawmlianaV, AnandA, KumarV, et al.Potential of growth factor incorporated mesoporous bioactive glass for in vivo bone regeneration. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2019; 91:182–192; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.12.012
180.
WangH, WuG, ZhangJ, et al.Osteogenic effect of controlled released rhBMP-2 in 3D printed porous hydroxyapatite scaffold. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2016; 141:491–498; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.02.007
181.
BessaPC, CasalM, ReisML. Bone morphogenetic proteins in tissue engineering: The road from laboratory to clinic, part II (BMP delivery). J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2008; 2(2–3):81–96; doi: 10.1002/term.74
182.
LeeS, KimJH, KimYH, et al.Sustained BMP-2 delivery via alginate microbeads and polydopamine-coated 3D-Printed PCL/β-TCP scaffold enhances bone regeneration in long bone segmental defects. J Orthop Translat, 2024; 49:11–22; doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.08.013
183.
DaiC, GuoH, LuJ, et al.Osteogenic evaluation of calcium/magnesium-doped mesoporous silica scaffold with incorporation of rhBMP-2 by synchrotron radiation-based μCT. Biomaterials, 2011; 32(33):8506–8517; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.090
184.
CollinsMN, RenG, YoungK, et al.Scaffold fabrication technologies and structure/function properties in bone tissue engineering. Adv Funct Materials, 2021; 31(21):2010609; doi: 10.1002/adfm.202010609
185.
SolaA, BertacchiniJ, D’AvellaD, et al.Development of solvent-casting particulate leaching (SCPL) polymer scaffolds as improved three-dimensional supports to mimic the bone marrow niche. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 96:153–165; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.10.086
186.
HutmacherDW. Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials, 2000; 21(24):2529–2543; doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00121-6
187.
CannilloV, ChielliniF, FabbriP, et al.Production of Bioglass® 45S5-polycaprolactone composite scaffolds via salt-leaching. Compos Struct, 2010; 92(8):1823–1832; doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.01.017
188.
BajajP, SchwellerRM, KhademhosseiniA, et al.3D biofabrication strategies for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2014; 16:247–276; doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-105155
189.
LiZ, XieM, LiY, et al.Recent progress in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. J Biomater Tissue Eng, 2016; 6(10):755–766; doi: 10.1166/jbt.2016.1510
190.
RosetiL, ParisiV, PetrettaM, et al.Scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: State of the art and new perspectives. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2017; 78:1246–1262; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.017
191.
KocyigitN. A review on the micro-and nanoporous polymeric foams: Preparation and properties. Rev Invest-Quindio, 2022; 34:217–230; doi: 10.1080/00914037.2015.1129948
192.
KimKO, LeeY, HwangJW, et al.Wound healing properties of a 3-D scaffold comprising soluble silkworm gland hydrolysate and human collagen. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2014; 116:318–326; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.12.004
193.
XingJ, ZhangM, LiuX, et al.Multi-material electrospinning: From methods to biomedical applications. Mater Today Bio, 2023; 21:100710; doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100710
194.
XueJ, WuT, DaiY, et al.Electrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: Methods, materials, and applications. Chem Rev, 2019; 119(8):5298–5415; doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00593
195.
LuoC, StoyanovS, StrideE, et al.Electrospinning versus fibre production methods: From specifics to technological convergence. Chem Soc Rev, 2012; 41(13):4708–4735; doi: 10.1039/C2CS35083A
196.
BudharajuH, SureshS, SekarMP, et al.Ceramic materials for 3D printing of biomimetic bone scaffolds—Current state-of-the-art & future perspectives. Mater Design, 2023; 231:112064; doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112064
197.
ChenJ, LiaoS, KongY, et al.3D-printed mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds for enhancing bone repair via synergetic angiogenesis and osteogenesis. Mater Design, 2023; 232:112089; doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2023.112089
198.
PolleyC, DistlerT, ScheuflerC, et al.3D printing of piezoelectric and bioactive barium titanate-bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Today Bio, 2023; 21:100719; doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100719
199.
JahedE, KhaledabadMA, AlmasiH, et al.Physicochemical properties of carum copticum essential oil loaded chitosan films containing organic nanoreinforcements. Carbohydr Polym, 2017; 164:325–338; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.02.022
200.
WangC, HuangW, ZhouY, et al.3D printing of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Bioact Mater, 2020; 5(1):82–91; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.01.004
201.
LiJ, WangC, GaoG, et al.MBG/PGA-PCL composite scaffolds provide highly tunable degradation and osteogenic features. Bioact Mater, 2022; 15:53–67; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.11.034
202.
OliveiraRLMS, AlvesAPN, BarbosaL, et al.3D printing of bioactive glass S53P4/sodium alginate sintering-free scaffolds. Bioprinting, 2022; 27:e00226; doi: 10.1016/j.bprint.2022.e00226
203.
KunwongN, TangjitN, RattanapinyopitukK, et al.Optimization of poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)-bioactive glass composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering using stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth. Arch Oral Biol, 2021; 123:105041; doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2021.105041
204.
MahmoudiM, AlizadehP, SoltaniM. Wound healing performance of electrospun PVA/70S30C bioactive glass/Ag nanoparticles mats decorated with curcumin: In vitro and in vivo investigations. Biomater Adv, 2023; 153:213530; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213530
205.
ZhangW, HouX, WangH, et al.Preparation of chitosan-sodium alginate/bioactive glass composite cartilage scaffolds with high cell activity and bioactivity. Ceram Int, 2023; 49(2):1987–1996; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.09.164
206.
WuC, LuoY, CunibertiG, et al.Three-dimensional printing of hierarchical and tough mesoporous bioactive glass scaffolds with a controllable pore architecture, excellent mechanical strength and mineralization ability. Acta Biomater, 2011; 7(6):2644–2650; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.03.009
207.
MozafariM, RabieeM, AzamiM, et al.Biomimetic formation of apatite on the surface of porous gelatin/bioactive glass nanocomposite scaffolds. Appl Surf Sci, 2010; 257(5):1740–1749; doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2010.09.008
208.
SagadevanS, SchirhaglR, RahmanMZ, et al.Recent advancements in polymer matrix nanocomposites for bone tissue engineering applications. J Drug Deliv Sci Tec, 2023; 82:104313; doi: 10.1016/j.jddst.2023.104313
209.
LiuX, ZhaoN, LiangH, et al.Bone tissue engineering scaffolds with HUVECs/hBMSCs cocultured on 3D-printed composite bioactive ceramic scaffolds promoted osteogenesis/angiogenesis. J Orthop Translat, 2022; 37:152–162; doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2022.10.008
