Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The continuous advancement of bone restoration technologies is crucial for the creation of innovative materials that possess enhanced functional and technological capabilities. One promising area of research focuses on the development of composite materials combining polymers and ceramics for bone regeneration. These materials offer several advantages over traditional bone grafting materials, including the ability to be customized to meet the specific needs of individual patients and a reduced risk of disease transmission. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the development of polymer-ceramic biomaterials with improved capacities for bone regeneration. This progress has primarily concentrated on enhancing mechanical properties, biodegradability, and biocompatibility. The objective of this overview is to present the latest advancements in composite ceramic polymers used for bone regeneration, encompassing the corresponding manufacturing processes as well as the materials employed in these biomaterials.

Keywords

Polymer-ceramic composites bone regeneration bioceramic biopolymer manufacturing processes

Introduction

Bone, a naturally occurring complex composite material, plays a vital role in maintaining the structural integrity of the body. It is primarily composed of inorganic components (approximately 60%), a solid organic matrix (30%), and water (about 10%).¹ The intricate nature of bone arises from its composition, consisting of diverse organic and inorganic elements, which enables it to fulfill various functional requirements throughout life. Bone serves as the body's framework, facilitates muscle attachment, and regulates calcium balance, exemplifying remarkable complexity. From a biomaterial perspective, bone is characterized as a hydroxyapatite crystal matrix reinforced by a collagen fiber network, exhibiting hierarchical organization across multiple length scales. This intricate arrangement accounts for the exceptional material properties exhibited by bone.²

In cases of abnormalities such as trauma, infection, non-union fractures, or tumor excision, the complex physiological process of bone formation necessitates bone regeneration.³ Although bone has the potential for autoregeneration, the use of different biomaterials remains crucial to achieve optimal bone regeneration.⁴

Scientific research has demonstrated that a bioactive scaffold made of ceramics and polymers is a reliable alternative to bone grafts in severe cases of bone shortage.⁵ These composite biomaterials must possess suitable mechanical properties and biocompatibility to support cell attachment, development, and differentiation.

Bioactive ceramic materials are excellent candidates for developing scaffolds for bone healing, as they can maintain, repair, restore, or enhance the function of bodily tissues and organs. However, some drawbacks of using bioactive ceramic materials alone for bone healing and regeneration can be overcome by combining them with biopolymers.⁶ Biopolymers are biocompatible natural or synthetic materials that, when combined with ceramics, yield composite materials with improved characteristics. Biopolymer-ceramic composites exhibit superior mechanical qualities, improved biocompatibility, and increased control over the scaffold’s breakdown rate, among other benefits for bone healing and regeneration. Advancements in the development of bioactive polymer-ceramic composites since the early 1920s have made them valuable for various clinical applications. These biomaterials form an apatite layer on their surface when implanted in the body, enabling them to adhere to living bone and promote bone regeneration.⁷

In recent years, significant progress has been made in the field of polymer-ceramic composites for bone tissue regeneration. This review provides an overview of current developments in natural and synthetic polymer-ceramic composite materials for bone tissue engineering. It highlights their crucial mechanical, biological, and degradation properties, as well as their manufacturing processes. Additionally, the review explores the biopolymers and bioceramics currently applied in bone therapy.

Biopolymers for bone tissue engineering

Over the past 50 years, substantial advancements have been made in the development of biodegradable polymeric materials for biomedical applications. These materials are increasingly employed in therapeutic devices, including temporary implants and three-dimensional scaffolds for tissue engineering.^8–11 Biopolymers, derived from living organisms, encompass a wide range of sources, such as plants like corn and soybeans, certain trees, and even certain bacteria.^12–15

Numerous studies have demonstrated the potential of biopolymers in bone tissue engineering, primarily attributed to their biocompatibility, biodegradability, and ability to mimic the extracellular matrix of natural bone. These materials provide a three-dimensional scaffold for cell growth and differentiation, promote angiogenesis, and stimulate bone regeneration.^13,16 A variety of natural biopolymers are cited in this research, including chitosan,¹⁷ hyaluronic acid,¹⁸ natural fibers as Flax^15,19–21 and gelatin,²² as well as synthetic polymers such as Polylactic Acid (PLA),^14,23 Polyurethane (PU), Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and PHB for various biomedical applications.^8,24–27

In addition to the mentioned biopolymers, proteins represent another important class of natural biopolymers, composed of amino acid monomers joined by peptide bonds. They can be derived from various biological sources, including meat, dairy, and plant-based foods.^28–31 Collagen, for instance, is a crucial natural biopolymer found in animal connective tissues, contributing to the structural support and elasticity of tissues such as skin, bone, and cartilage.³² Cellulose, on the other hand, is a key biopolymer present in plant cell walls, providing structural support and protection to plant cells.³³ A detailed classification of biopolymers was presented in Table 1.³⁴

Table 1.

The most commonly used natural polymers for bone tissue engineering and their applications.

Polymer	Source	Description	Applications
Collagen^32,35	Animals	Present in connective tissues; gives suppleness and structural support to tissues like skin, bone, and cartilage	Hemostatic agents and drug delivery, but restricted by mild immunogenicity, high cost, and variable physicochemical and degrading characteristics
Chitosan³⁶	Shells of crustaceans, cell walls of fungi	Biodegradable biomaterial with antibacterial properties; promotes osteoblast cell adhesion and proliferation and in vitro mineralization of bone matrix	Bone scaffold material
Hyaluronic acid³⁷	Synthesized by bacteria, present in connective tissues	Naturally occurring polysaccharide with anti-inflammatory properties; can be transformed into porous and three-dimensional forms; crucial component in the development of biomaterials for cell treatment, 3D cell culture, and tissue engineering	Tissue repair, cell treatment, 3D cell culture, and tissue engineering
Gelatin ^38,39	Collagen-rich tissues of animals	Produced by breaking down collagen; relatively inexpensive polymer with great biodegradability and biocompatibility; employed in pharmaceutical and medical industries as an implant matrix	Pharmaceutical and medical industrie smart drug delivery systems (DDS)
Silk fibroin⁴⁰	Silkworm Bombyx mori	Semi-crystalline structure with great elasticity, flexibility, and tensile strength; investigated for use in tissue engineering, wound healing, drug delivery, and 3D bioprinting	Tissue engineering, wound healing, drug delivery, and 3D bioprinting

Tissue Engineering (TE) is an interdisciplinary field that encompasses materials science in combination with biological and engineering sciences. Both cases require an excellent biomaterial excipient to achieve controlled release of therapeutic agents to provide the correct matrix for cell proliferation. Although natural polymers have demonstrated potential advantages in supporting cell function and adhesion, there are some limitations and concerns regarding their use. For example, it is challenging to control the mechanical properties and degradation rates of natural polymers, and there is a potential for a natural polymer to elicit an immune response or carry microbes or viruses.⁴²

Nevertheless, synthetic polymers can be modified to possess a much wider range of mechanical and chemical properties, as well as the capacity to promote cell adhesion and proliferation, than natural polymers. Furthermore, synthetic polymers can avoid problems with immunogenicity. However, biocompatibility poses a new challenge for bone regeneration.

In the context of bone regeneration, Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) stands out as one of the most commonly used synthetic polymers due to its remarkable biocompatibility, biodegradability, and excellent mechanical properties, making it ideal for bone tissue engineering.⁴³ PLGA can be utilized in various forms such as microspheres, nanoparticles, and scaffolds, and it has demonstrated the ability to support osteoblast growth and facilitate new bone formation.⁴⁴

Similarly, Poly(caprolactone) (PCL) is another synthetic polymer commonly employed in bone regeneration applications. It is valued for its excellent toughness, processability, and compatibility with bone tissue.^45,46 The superior mechanical properties and slow degradation rate of PCL make it suitable for long-term applications in bone regeneration.⁴⁷ Taking advantage of this polymer, Kuang et al. developed biodegradable porous scaffolds with oriented interconnected pores and high mechanical strength for bone tissue engineering. The resulting oriented porous PCL scaffolds exhibited exceptional biocompatibility, induced elongated cell morphology, and possessed a highly reinforced oriented structure suitable for load-bearing bone tissue applications.⁴⁵ Polyurethane (PU) is a versatile polymer that can be formulated into various forms, including foams, films, and fibers.^49,50 This adaptability makes PU a valuable material in diverse applications. Additionally, polyethylene glycol (PEG), a hydrophilic polymer, finds use as a scaffold material in bone tissue engineering. PEG offers distinct advantages over natural hydrogels, such as the ability to undergo photopolymerization, adjustable mechanical properties, and control over scaffold architecture and chemical composition.^51,52 These features contribute to its appeal in creating scaffolds tailored to specific tissue engineering requirements.

Furthermore, poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) serves as a thermoplastic utilized as bone cement in orthopedic surgery. PMMA exhibits favorable mechanical properties and can be easily shaped into various forms, making it a preferred choice for orthopedic applications.⁵³

Polymeric nanoparticles have garnered significant attention as a highly promising strategy for facilitating efficient oral delivery of bioactive compounds. These nanoparticles exhibit inherent mucoadhesive properties, allowing them to adhere to the mucosal surfaces of the gastrointestinal tract. This mucoadhesive behavior enables enhanced residence time and improved absorption of the encapsulated bioactive compounds. By capitalizing on the unique properties of polymeric nanoparticles, researchers aim to overcome the challenges associated with oral drug delivery, such as enzymatic degradation and limited absorption.⁵⁴

It seems as though the future of biopolymer application is to use various polymer combinations to develop hybrid polymers that have a better specificity profile for specific biomedical applications, be such as tissue engineering, drug delivery, or wound healing. This is in contradiction to trying to categorize specific polymers for specific biomedical applications. In fact, a large number of recent studies on polymers for biomedical use have addressed merging various biomaterials using methods including blending, grafting, and chemical cross-linking reactions, with generally beneficial outcomes.

Bioceramics for bone regeneration

Owing to outstanding biocompatibility, osteoconductivity and osteoinductivity, a variety of bioceramics have been widely applied in bone defects repair and bone tissue regeneration, such as Hydroxyapatite HA (Ca₁₀(PO₄)₆OH₂),^55,56 β-TCP (Ca₃(PO₄)₂),⁵⁷ akermanite (Ca₂MgSi₂O₇), and 45S5 (24.5Na₂O-24.5CaO–45SiO₂–6P₂O₅),⁵⁸ etc. These bioceramics have a similar structure and function to the inorganic component of bone⁵⁹ (Table 2), making them ideal for developing bone-like scaffolds that can bond with surrounding bone tissue and stimulate bone growth and healing.^60,61 Additionally, these bioceramics can be designed to deliver biologically active substances that can help repair, maintain, restore, or, improve organ function.^26,43,62,63 Surface-modified bioceramics can also be loaded with antibiotics to prevent post-surgical infections. Other ceramic-based materials such as silica, alumina, and zirconia can also be used for bone implants.^65–67

Table 2.

Different phases of calcium orthophosphate based bone mineral in order of decreasing acidity, decreasing solubility.^5,16,17,59

Chemical name	Formula	Molar ratio, Ca/P
Dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (DCPD)	CaHPO₄ 2H₂O	1.00
Octacalcium phosphate (OCP)	Ca₈H₂(PO₄)₆	1.33
Amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP)	Ca_x(PO₄)_y	1.3–1.5
Tricalcium phosphate (TCP)	Ca₃(PO₄)2	1.50
Hydroxyapatite (HAp)	Ca₁₀(PO₄)₆(OH)₂	1.67

Hydroxyapatite (HA), a bioceramic, finds extensive use as a coating on orthopedic and dental implants.⁶⁸ In addition to coatings for orthopedic implants,^69–71 HA particles can also be implanted directly. The utilization of HA in orthopedic applications is attributed to its chemical resemblance to the mineral composition of bone and teeth^72,73 (Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparative composition of chemical elements Ca and P in calcified tissues of adult humans and HA.⁶⁹

Composition, wt.%	Dentine	Bone	HA
Calcium	35.1	34.8	39.6
Phosphorus (as P)	16.9	15.2	18.5
Ca/P (molar ratio)	1.61	1.71	1.67

The calcium/phosphate (Ca/P) ratio is a crucial parameter that significantly impacts the properties of calcium orthophosphates, including degradation and bioactivity.³⁷ This ratio is closely associated with basicity/acidity and solubility, which, in turn, are influenced by the pH of the solution. When the Ca/P molar ratio decreases, the calcium orthophosphate tends to become more acidic and water-soluble.⁷⁵ Consequently, only specific compounds among the various calcium orthophosphates are suitable for biomedical applications, as those with a Ca/P ionic ratio below one exhibit high solubility and acidity, rendering them unsuitable for implantation. On the whole, naturally occurring stoichiometric hydroxyapatite typically possesses a Ca/P ionic ratio of 1.67.⁷⁶ Table 4 showcases different calcium phosphates along with their corresponding Ca/P ratios.

Table 4.

Name, Ca/P ratio and chemical formula of various calcium phosphate.^7,77

Ca/P ratio	Name	Formula	Acronym
2.0	Tetracalcium phosphate	Ca₄O(PO₄)₂	TTCP
1.67	Hydroxyapatite	Ca₁₀(PO₄)₆(OH)₂	HA
1.50	Tricalcium phosphate	Ca₃(PO₄)₂	TCP
1.33	Octacalcium phosphate	Ca₈H₂(PO4)₆5H₂O	OCP
1.0	Dicalcium phosphate	CaHPO₄ 2H₂O	DCPD dihydrate
1.0	Dicalcium phosphate	CaHPO₄	DCPA
1.0	Calcium pyrophosphate	Ca₂P₂O₇	CPP
1.0	Calcium pyrophosphate	Ca₂P₂O₇2H₂O	CPPD dihydrate
0.7	Heptacalcium phosphate	Ca₇(P₅O₁₆)₂	HCP
0.67	Tetracalcium dihydrogen	Ca₄H₂P₆O₂₀	TDHP phosphate
0.5	Monocalcium phosphate	Ca(H₂PO₄)2H₂O	MCPM monohydrate
0.5	Calcium metaphosphate	Ca(PO₃)₂	CMP

For years, bioceramics have been successfully utilized in orthopedic applications as reliable and effective materials for bone implants. However, their mechanical properties pose a significant challenge in terms of providing optimal strength and durability that can withstand the stresses and physiological demands of repaired bone.^24,78 Furthermore, certain applications may require bioceramics to possess tenacity and ductility, which are not inherent properties of these materials.²⁶ Additionally, the rate of osseous regeneration may not align with the rates of degradation and resorption of bioceramics, resulting in complications such as implant fractures or deterioration. To overcome these limitations, several ongoing studies are exploring innovative techniques and improved materials to enhance the capabilities of bioceramics.^24,79-81 These endeavors seek to overcome the challenges associated with their mechanical properties, promote enhanced strength and resilience, and ensure compatibility with the natural regeneration processes of bone.⁸²

Recent biocomposite polymer-ceramic applied in bones regeneration

In recent years, the field of polymer-ceramic composites for biomedical application has undergone significant advancements and developments. Researchers have discovered new types of raw materials and developed techniques using state-of-the-art procedures to fabricate, shape, and transform these materials. Moreover, new tools have been developed to study these emerging materials. These developments have led to the creation of composites with advanced capabilities for bone regeneration, providing solutions to contemporary problems. In order to cure bone pathologies and repair fractures, polymer-bioceramic composites are nowadays adapted to many uses.

For this remarkable generation of biomaterial, ceramics play a crucial role by imparting bioactivity and osteoconductivity to the scaffold. The incorporation of ceramic components within the composite provides a robust framework that can support the growth of new bone tissue. On the other hand, polymers within these composites contribute valuable properties such as flexibility and resorbability. The polymer constituents ensure that the composite remains pliable, allowing it to adapt to the surrounding bone tissue and minimize the risk of mechanical failure. Furthermore, the polymer’s resorbable nature facilitates the gradual breakdown of the composite over time, enabling the natural integration and remodeling of the regenerated bone tissue.

The composites polymer-ceramic are generaly composed of ceramic particles like hydroxyapatite (HA)^83,84 or tricalcium phosphate (TCP) with a polymer matrix such as poly(lactic acid), poly(glycolic acid), or polycaprolactone (PCL).^85,86 The key benefits of using these biodegradable biocomposites are that they can be naturally expelled from the body, eliminating the need for a second surgery to remove them after use. Second, due to the biocompatibility, bioactivity, and non-toxicity of degradable implant materials, osteoblasts will regenerate bone as the implant material gradually wears away. Further technical benefit of using this biodegradable biomaterial is its ability to replace stainless steel bone plates, screws, etc… used for bone stabilization.⁸⁷ Their potential is considerable, whether it is bone augmentation, controlled delivery mechanisms or a revolution in hard tissue engineering.

Hydroxyapatite (HA) is the most used ceramic biomaterial since it mimics the mineral composition of the bone in vertebrates. However, this biomimetic material has poor mechanical properties, such as low tensile and compressive strength, which make it not suitable for bone tissue engineering (BTE). For this reason, HA is often used in combination with different polymers and crosslinkers in the form of composites to improve their mechanical properties and the overall performance of the implantable biomaterials developed for orthopedic applications.^83,88

The following section will describe a number of recent biodegradable polymer-ceramic composites designed for bone regeneration and highlight several of their unique characteristics.

Zimina et al. developed a composite material by combining polylactide acid (PLA) and hydroxyapatite (HA) particles, and as a result of physicochemical analysis, the presence of essential functional groups and uniform distribution of HA particles within the PLA/HA composite were confirmed. The composites exhibited macropores with a total porosity of 79%, leading to an improved water contact angle compared to pure PLA. Moreover, in vitro and in vivo evaluations demonstrated 3.2 times higher adhesion of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells to PLA/HA scaffolds compared to pure PLA. Additionally, subcutaneous implantation of the porous scaffolds in mice showed excellent tolerance and widespread tissue ingrowth, while the HA-containing scaffolds exhibited a reduced inflammatory response after 2 weeks compared to pure PLA.⁸⁵

Similarly, Si et al. (2019) fabricated scaffolds using PLA and PLA/HA composites with a porosity exceeding 85%. The increase in the concentration of hydroxyapatite (HA) resulted in a decrease in sample porosity, while simultaneously enhancing hydrophilicity, mechanical stability, and cytocompatibility.⁸⁹ Additionally, 3D-printed PLA/PCL/HA composite scaffolds with a PLA/PCL ratio of 70/30%–35% showcased a porosity of 77%, an average pore size of 160 μm, and a Young’s modulus of 1.35 MPa. In vitro studies investigating MG63 cells examined cell adhesion, viability, and mineral deposition in PLA/PCL/HA scaffolds with varying PLA/PCL ratios (70/30, 50/50, and 30/70) and a fixed HA content of 35%.⁹⁰

Furthermore, Wu et al. (2020) attempted to prepare PLA/HA composites mimicking the structure of trabecular bone, leading to enhanced mechanical behavior and elastic modulus with increasing HA content in the PLA matrix.⁹¹ In another study, Masoumeh et al. (2018) fabricated a GBR membrane consisting of polycaprolactone (PCL)/gelatin/chitosan, which was modified with different percentages of β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) to improve biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and antibacterial activity.⁹²

Wang et al. (2019) investigated the applicability, cellular efficacy, and osteogenic activities of porous nano-hydroxyapatite/Poly (glycerol sebacate)-grafted maleic anhydride (n-HA/PGS-g-M) composite scaffolds. The study revealed increased apatite deposits on the surface of n-HA/PGS-g-M scaffolds compared to PGS-g-M scaffolds. These porous n-HA/PGS-g-M composite scaffolds demonstrated acceptable biocompatibility and mechanical properties, while also stimulating hADSC cell proliferation and differentiation.⁹³

Additionally, Najah et al. conducted research on a calcium phosphate reinforced polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biocomposite, where the addition of CaP to PHA resulted in fluctuations in tensile strength and impact strength. The composite exhibited a drop in these properties at a level approximately three times lower than that of neat PHA.⁷⁹

In another study by Monia (2022), a bone implant (β-TCP/DCPD-PHBV) based on Poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) and bioceramic β-TCP/DCPD demonstrated efficacy in healing bone defects. Mechanical investigations revealed that this biomaterial possessed satisfactory mechanical strength (195.21 MPa), which closely resembled that of natural bone. Furthermore, the combination of the two biocompatible materials in this study provided an additional advantage, as the ductility of PHBV mitigated the brittleness typically associated with pure β-TCP/DCPD.²⁶

Orthopedic implants’ functionality may be hampered by inadequate host tissue integration, inflammatory reactions, and infection. These bone biomaterials' surface characteristics have an impact on how immunological and osteogenic cells function biologically. We may now make nanostructured surfaces with controlled physicochemical properties that affect osteogenesis-related and immune cell activity, affecting bone integration and local immune response thanks to modern nanofabrication techniques.

The manufacturing process significantly influences the properties of a biocomposite. The selection of manufacturing techniques, such as extrusion, compression molding, 3D printing, or electrospinning, can have a profound impact on the final characteristics of the biocomposite material. The following section describes the most commonly employed manufacturing processes used to create polymer-ceramic composites.

Various polymer-ceramic manufacturing processes

Polymer-ceramic materials can be synthesized using various techniques. One commonly used method is Sol-Gel Processing, where ceramic particles are synthesized in a sol solution and incorporated into the polymer matrix.^94,95 This process allows for precise control over the size, shape, and content of the ceramic particles, resulting in composites with exceptional mechanical and thermal properties.^96,97 In addition, the study conducted by Dorozhkin provides further evidence of the successful application of the sol-gel technique, as demonstrated in the creation of a Titanium-HA composite with outstanding mechanical qualities and good biocompatibility.⁶⁶

Another technique, in situ polymerization, involves polymerizing the polymer matrix while the ceramic particles are formed in situ. This technique ensures a homogeneous distribution of ceramic particles within the polymer matrix.⁹⁸ The PCL-CaP composite synthesized using this method exhibits excellent mechanical properties and good biocompatibility, supporting the growth and proliferation of human mesenchymal stem cells.⁹⁹ Similarly, the synthesis of Poly(methyl methacrylate)-Zirconia Composites utilizing this technique has found applications in dental implants and bone fillers.¹⁰⁰

On the other hand, melt mixing is a technique that entails mixing ceramic particles with a polymer matrix using an extruder or mixer.^88,101 By employing this process, carbon nanotube (CNT)-reinforced polymer composites are synthesized, leading to improved mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties compared to the pure polymer matrix.¹⁰²

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an additive manufacturing method that enables the fabrication of complex structures using a wide range of materials.^103,104 Numerous biocomposites for bone repair, including poly(lactic acid) (PLA)/Hydroxyapatite (HAP) composites, zinc oxide (ZnO)-grafted/polylactic acid (PLA) composites, Polylactide/Poly(butylene adipate-coterephthalate) (PLA/PBAT) composites, abalone/ polycaprolactone (aba/ PCL), have been produced through this technique have been produced through this technique.^105–108

Additionally, ultrasonic processing is an innovative method that allows for the fabrication of CNT nanopaper nanocomposites with a high CNT loading at a fast infiltration rate.¹⁰⁹ By employing ultrasonic waves, the resin is impregnated into the CNT nanopaper, resulting in the formation of nanocomposites.¹¹⁰

Furthermore, the electrospinning technique integrates ceramic particles into a polymer solution, utilizing an electric field to produce polymer-ceramic nanofibers.^111–114 These nanofibers exhibit improved mechanical and thermal properties due to their increased surface area-to-volume ratio.^{46,54,115–118}

Lastly, compression molding is a method in which ceramic particles are mixed with a polymer matrix and subjected to high pressure and temperature, resulting in a composite with excellent mechanical and thermal properties.^119,41

In summary, the selection of a processing method for polymer-ceramic composites should consider factors such as the desired properties, uniformity of particle distribution, cost-effectiveness, and application requirements. Each method has its own advantages and limitations, and choosing the most suitable technique will contribute to the development of composites with improved performance and functionality.

Conclusion and prospects

In conclusion, polymer-ceramic composites have emerged as a promising solution for bone repair and regeneration by combining the advantageous properties of ceramics, such as bioactivity and osteoconductivity, with the flexibility and resorbability of polymers. This combination allows for the development of composites with enhanced mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and controlled degradation kinetics. By incorporating ceramic particles into a polymer matrix, these biomaterials offer alternatives to traditional approaches and materials, opening up new possibilities in the field of bone repair.

Looking ahead, the future of polymer-ceramic composites in bone repair will be influenced by intelligent manufacturing techniques. The rapid development of intelligent manufacturing, including 3D, 4D, and 5D printing, will revolutionize the production of these composites. These advanced manufacturing techniques, aided by intelligent systems and robotics, will contribute to improved processing and quality control, leading to more efficient and cost-effective production of polymer-ceramic composite parts. This integration of intelligent manufacturing will help address labor costs and reduce production defects.

Another perspective for advancing polymer-ceramic composites in bone repair lies in the incorporation of bioactive molecules, growth factors, and drug delivery systems. By integrating these factors into the composites, the therapeutic potential of these biomaterials can be further enhanced. The inclusion of bioactive molecules facilitates active promotion of bone regeneration, angiogenesis, and antibacterial activity. Moreover, the controlled release of these bioactive molecules allows for modulation of the healing process and targeted tissue regeneration in specific clinical scenarios.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Trimeche Monia

References

Feng

. Chemical and biochemical basis of cell-bone matrix interaction in health and disease. nCurr Chem Biol 2009; 3(2): 189–196.

Managuli

Yashwant Bothra

, et al. Overview of mechanical characterization of bone using nanoindentation technique and its applications, Engineered science , 2023, p. 820. DOI: 10.30919/es8d820.

Sadeghzade

Liu

Wang

, et al. Recent advances on bioactive baghdadite ceramic for bone tissue engineering applications: 20 years of research and innovation (a review). Materials Today Bio 2022; 17: 100473. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100473.

Winkler

Sass

Duda

, et al. A review of biomaterials in bone defect healing, remaining shortcomings and future opportunities for bone tissue engineering: the unsolved challenge. Bone Joint Res 2018; 7(3): 232–243. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.73.BJR-2017-0270.R1.

Kamboj

Ressler

Hussainova

. Bioactive ceramic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering by powder bed selective laser processing: a review. Materials 2021; 14(18): 5338. DOI: 10.3390/ma14185338.

Jiménez-Gallegos

Rodríguez-Lorenzo

San Roman

, et al. Preparation, bioactivity, and cytotoxicity studies of poly(ester urethane)s/SiO2 nanocomposites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2019; 32(1): 108–122. DOI: 10.1177/0892705717744831.

Miyazaki

Ohtsuki

. 16—design of bioactive bone cement based on organic–inorganic hybrids, (ed): Sanjukta

. In: Woodhead publishing series in biomaterials, orthopaedic bone cements. ISBN 9781845693763. Woodhead Publishing, 2008, pp. 358–376. DOI: 10.1533/9781845695170.4.358.

Song

Murphy

, et al. Current development of biodegradable polymeric materials for biomedical applications. Drug Des Dev Ther 2018; 12: 3117–3145. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S165440.

Naik

Shivamurthy

Thimmappa

BHS

, et al. Recent advances in green composites and their applications. Eng Sci 2022; 21: 779. DOI: 10.30919/es8e779.

10.

Zhang

H-C

C-N

X-Z

, et al. Recent developments of nanocellulose and its applications in polymeric composites ES. Food Agrofor 2022; 9: 1–14. DOI: 10.30919/esfaf768.

11.

Socci

Rodríguez

Oliva

, et al. Polymeric materials, advances and applications in tissue engineering: a review. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023; 10(2): 218. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10020218.

12.

Yadav

Shah

, et al. Biomedical biopolymers, their origin and evolution in biomedical sciences: a systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(9): ZE21–ZE25. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13907.6565.

13.

Mohanty

Misra

Drzal

. Natural fibers, biopolymers, and biocomposites. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 2005.

14.

Scaffaro

Maio

Gammino

. Hybrid biocomposites based on polylactic acid and natural fillers from Chamaerops humilis dwarf palm and Posidonia oceanica leaves. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 1988–2001. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00534-y.

15.

Chen

Lin

, et al. Fluorescent probe of nitrogen-doped carbon dots derived from biomass for the sensing of MnO₄⁻ in polluted water based on inner filter effect. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 2378–2386. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00443-0.

16.

Monia

Hichem

Ridha

, et al. Elaboration and evaluation of a composite bone substitute based on β-TCP/DCPD and PHBV, preliminary results. Biomed Eng 2016; 28(5): 1650031.

17.

Kumar

MNVR

Muzzarelli

RAA

Muzzarelli

, et al. Chitosan chemistry and pharmaceutical perspectives. Chem Rev 2004; 104(12): 6017–6084.

18.

Allison

Grande-Allen

. Review. Hyaluronan: a powerful tissue engineering tool. Tissue Eng 2006; 12(8): 2131–2140. DOI: 10.1089/ten.2006.12.2131.

19.

. Flax fiber–based polymer composites: a review. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 1–20. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-021-00246-9.

20.

Chauhan

Kärki

Varis

. Review of natural fiber-reinforced engineering plastic composites, their applications in the transportation sector and processing techniques. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2022; 35(8): 1169–1209. DOI: 10.1177/0892705719889095.

21.

Mangat

Singh

. Characterization of natural fibre-embedded biodegradable porous structures prepared with fused deposition process. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2019; 32(6): 761–777. DOI: 10.1177/0892705718780185.

22.

Lee

Singla

Lee

. Biomedical applications of collagen. Int J Pharm 2001; 221(1-2): 1–22.

23.

Llorens

Calderón

del Valle

, et al. Polybiguanide (PHMB) loaded in PLA scaffolds displaying high hydrophobic, biocompatibility and antibacterial properties. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2015; 50: 74–84.

24.

Monia

Ridha

Hassib

. Composite cement embedded in a biopolymer matrix for bone tissue regeneration. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2023; 0(0). DOI: 10.1177/08927057231153858.

25.

Trimeche

(2017) Biomaterials for bone regeneration: an overview. Biomaterials and Tissue Technology 2017; 1(2): 1–5; DOI: 10.15761/BTT.1000107.

26.

Monia

. β-TCP/DCPD-PHBV (40%/60%): biomaterial made from bioceramic and biopolymer for bone regeneration; investigation of intrinsic properties. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2022; Jan-Dec. DOI: 10.1177/22808000221088950. Nanosci. Nanotechnol., 2 (3–4) (2002), pp. 293–312.

27.

Loh

. Recent advances of using polyhydroxyalkanoate-based nanovehicles as therapeutic delivery carriers. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2017; 9(3): e1429.

28.

Numata

. How to define and study structural proteins as biopolymer materials. Polym J 2020; 52: 1043–1056. DOI: 10.1038/s41428-020-0362-5.

29.

Huang

Qiu

, et al. Effective removal of proteins and polysaccharides from biotreated wastewater by polyaniline composites. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 1888–1898. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00508-0.

30.

Doan

Karatela

, et al. Surface modifications of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles with polylactic acid-polyethylene glycol diblock copolymer and graphene oxide for a protein delivery vehicle. Eng Sci 2019; 7: 10–16. DOI: 10.30919/es8d510.

31.

Goswami

Dubey

. A novel population-based optimization for multiple sequence alignment in protein sequencing. Eng Sci 2023; 21: 786. DOI: 10.30919/es8d786.

32.

Parenteau-Bareil

Gauvin

Berthod

. collagen-based biomaterials for tissue engineering applications. Materials 2010; 3(3): 1863–1887. DOI: 10.3390/ma3031863.

33.

Alberts

Johnson

Lewis

, et al. Molecular biology of the cell. The plant cell wall. 4th ed. New York: Garland Science, 2002. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26928

34.

Pramanik

Kharche

, et al. Natural biopolymers for bone tissue engineering: a brief review. Engineered Regeneration 2022; 4: 193–204. ISSN 2666-1381.

35.

Chen

Zhang

Zhao

, et al. Promotion of skin regeneration through co-axial electrospun fibers loaded with basic fibroblast growth factor. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 1111–1125. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00439-w.

36.

Levengood

Zhang

. Chitosan-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Mater Chem B 2014; 2(21): 3161–3184. DOI: 10.1039/C4TB00027G.

37.

Swetha

Sahithi

Moorthi

, et al. Biocomposites containing natural polymers and hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 2010; 47(1): 1–4. Epub 2010 Mar 31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2010.03.015.

38.

Jaipan

Nguyen

Narayan

. Gelatin-based hydrogels for biomedical applications. MRS Commun 2017; 7(3): 416–426. DOI: 10.1557/mrc.2017.92.

39.

Arun

Malrautu

Laha

, et al. Gelatin nanofibers in drug delivery systems and tissue engineering. Eng Sci 2021; 16: 71–81. DOI: 10.30919/es8d527.

40.

Sun

. Silk fibroin-based biomaterials for tissue engineering applications. Molecules 2022; 27(9): 2757. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27092757.

41.

FuXu

Liu

Yang

, et al. Overview of injection molding technology for processing polymers and their composites. ES Mater & Manuf 2020; 3: 23–28. DOI: 10.30919/esmm5f713.

42.

Schmidt

Baier

. Acellular vascular tissues: natural bioma-terials for tissue repair and tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2000; 21(22): 2215–2231.

43.

Zhao

Zhu

, et al. Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based composite bone-substitute materials. Bioact Mater 2020; 6(2): 346–360. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.08.016.

44.

Sun

Wang

, et al. Application of 3D-printed, PLGA-based scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23: 5831. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23105831.

45.

Dwivedi

Kumar

Pandey

, et al. Polycaprolactone as biomaterial for bone scaffolds: Review of literature. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020; 10(1): 381–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.10.003.

46.

Choi

Raja

Selvaraj

, et al. Activated carbon nanofiber nanoparticles incorporated electrospun polycaprolactone scaffolds to promote fibroblast behaviors for application to skin tissue engineering. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2023; 6: 24. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00608-x.

47.

Hutmacher

Schantz

Zein

, et al. Mechanical properties and cell cultural response of polycaprolactone scaffolds designed and fabricated via fused deposition modeling. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 55(2): 203–216. DOI: 10.1002/1097-4636(200105)55:2<203::aid-jbm1007>3.0.co;2-7.

48.

Kuang

Chen

, et al. A facile approach to fabricate load-bearing porous polymer scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 1376–1384. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00418-1.

49.

Szczepańczyk

Szlachta

Złocista-Szewczyk

, et al. Recent developments in polyurethane-based materials for bone tissue engineering. Polymers 2021; 13: 946. DOI: 10.3390/polym13060946.

50.

Janik

Marzec

, A review: fabrication of porous polyurethane scaffolds, Mater Sci Eng C 2015; 48: 586–591, ISSN 0928-4931. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2014.12.037.

51.

Zhu

, Bioactive modification of poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels for tissue engineering, Biomaterials 2010; 31(17): 4639–4656, ISSN 0142-9612. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.02.044.

52.

Arora

Chan

Gupta

, et al. Polymethylmethacrylate bone cements and additives: a review of the literature. World J Orthop 2013; 4(2): 67–74. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v4.i2.67.

53.

Webb

JCJ

Spencer

. The role of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement in modern orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89-B(7): 851–857. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19148.

54.

Wang

Fleming

Luo

. An overview of the biochemistry, synthesis, modification, and evaluation of mucoadhesive polymeric nanoparticles for oral delivery of bioactive compounds. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2023; 6: 6. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00586-0.

55.

Denissen

Groot

Kd.

Immediate dental root implants from synthetic dense calcium hydroxylapatite. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42(5): 551–556.

56.

Brown

Chow

(1986). A new calcium phosphate water-setting cement. In Brown

(Ed.), Cements Research Progress (pp. 352–379). Scientific Research Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=511382

57.

Mirjalili

Bagheshahi

Aghaee

. Synthesis and characterization of β-TCP/HA nanocomposite: morphology and microstructure. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2020; 33(9): 1292–1313. DOI: 10.1177/0892705718824379.

58.

Shekhawat

Singh

Banerjee

, et al. Bioceramic composites for orthopaedic applications: a comprehensive review of mechanical, biological, and microstructural properties. Ceram Int 2021; 47: 3013–3030. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.09.214.

59.

Unger

Sartoris

Peters

, et al. Tissue-like self-assembly in cocultures of endothelial cells and osteoblasts and the formation of microcapillary-like structures on three-dimensional porous biomaterials. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 3965–3976.

60.

Ielo

Calabrese

De Luca

, et al. Recent advances in hydroxyapatite-based biocomposites for bone tissue regeneration in orthopedics. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23(17): 9721. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23179721.

61.

Shi

Zhou

, et al. Hydroxyap‐atite based materials for bone tissue engineering: a brief and compre‐hensive introduction. Crystals 2021; 11: 149. DOI: 10.3390/cryst11020149.

62.

Kokubo

. Bioceramics and their clinical applications. Swaston: Woodhead Publishing, 2008, pp. 367–394. DOI: 10.1533/9781845694227.3.606.

63.

LeGeros

. Calcium phosphate materials in restorative dentistry: a review. Adv Dent Res. 1988;2(1): 164–180. DOI: 10.1177/22808000221088950.

64.

Paul

Sharma

. Ceramic drug delivery: a perspective. J Biomater Appl 2003; 17(4): 253–264.

65.

Cao

Hench

. Bioactive materials. Ceram Int 1996; 22(6): 493–507.

66.

Dorozhkin

Epple

. Biological and medical significance of calcium phosphates. Wiley: Weinheim 2002: 3130–3146.

67.

Mann

Singh

Kumar

, et al. On briefing the surface modifications of polylactic acid: A scope for betterment of biomedical structures. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2021; 34(7): 977–1005. DOI: 10.1177/0892705719856052.

68.

Suchanek

Yoshimura

. Processing and properties of hydroxyapatite-based biomaterials for use as hard tissue replacement implants. J Mater Res 1998; 13: 94–117. DOI: 10.1557/JMR.1998.0015.

69.

Bose

Tarafder

. Calcium phosphate ceramic systems in growth factor and drug delivery for bone tissue engineering: a review. Acta Biomater 2012; 8(4): 1401–1421.

70.

Xiao-Ming

Rong-Rong

Lian-Wen

, et al. 3D-printed biopolymers for tissue engineering application, Int J Polym Sci 2014; 2014(2): 137–149

71.

Catledge

Fries

Vohra

, et al. Nanostructured ceramics for biomedical implants. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2(3-4): 293–312.

72.

Pate

. Bone chemistry and paleodiet. J. Archaeol Method Theory 1994; 1: 161–209.

73.

Neuman

. Bone material and calcification mechanisms. In: Fundamental and clinical bone physiology. Philadelphia, US: Lippincott, 1980: 83–107.

74.

Dorozhkin

. Calcium orthophosphates: occurrence, properties, biomineralization, pathological calcification and biomimetic applications. Biomatter. 2011; 1(2): 121–164. DOI: 10.4161/biom.18790.

75.

LeGeros

. Calcium phosphates in oral biology and medicine, Monographs in Oral Science. Karger, 15. Basel: 1991: 201.

76.

Dorozhkin

. Calcium orthophosphates as bioceramics: state of the art. J Funct Biomater 2010; 1(1): 22–107. DOI: 10.3390/jfb1010022.

77.

Dorozhkin

. Calcium orthophosphates. J Mater Sci 2007; 42: 1061–1095. DOI: 10.1007/s10853-006-1467-8. [CrossRef] [Google ScholarRef] [list].

78.

Canillas

Pena

Antonio

, et al. Calcium phosphates for biomedical applications. Bol Soc Espanola Ceram Vidr 2017; 56(3): 91–112. ISSN 0366–3175.

79.

Najah

Aisyah

Adzila

, et al. Mechanical properties of calcium phosphate reinforced polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biocomposite. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2022. DOI: 10.1177/08927057221128188.

80.

Chow

Tham

Mohd Ishak

. Improvement of microstructure and properties of poly(methyl methacrylate)/hydroxyapatite composites treated with zirconate coupling agent. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2012; 25(2): 165–180. DOI: 10.1177/0892705711408163.

81.

Dubey

Kesarwani

Verma

. Incorporation of graphene nanoplatelets/hydroxyapatite in PMMA bone cement for characterization and enhanced mechanical properties of biopolymer composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2023; 36(5): 1978–2008. DOI: 10.1177/08927057221086833.

82.

Gunduz

Ahmad

Ekren

, et al. Reinforcing of biologically derived apatite with commercial inert glass. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2009; 22(4): 407–419. DOI: 10.1177/0892705709105974.

83.

Nuha

Mahmoud

Yas

, et al. Cellulose acetate-hydroxyapatite-bioglass-zirconia nanocomposite particles as potential biomaterial: synthesis. Characterization Biol Prop Bone Appl Eng Sci 2022; 17: 70–82. DOI: 10.30919/es8d528.

84.

Ferri

Jordá

Montanes

, et al. Manufacturing and characterization of poly(lactic acid) composites with hydroxyapatite. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2018; 31(7): 865–881. DOI: 10.1177/0892705717729014.

85.

Zimina

Senatov

Choudhary

, et al. Biocompatibility and physico-chemical properties of highly porous PLA/HA scaffolds for bone reconstruction. Polymers 2020; 12(12): 2938. DOI: 10.3390/polym12122938.

86.

Guarino

Causa

Taddei

, et al. Polylactic acid fibre-reinforced polycaprolactone scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2008; 29(27): 3662–3670. Epub 2008 Jun 10. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.024.

87.

Pina

Ferreira

JMF

. 5. Bioresorbable composites for bone repair. In: Paulo Davim

(ed). Biomedical composites: materials, manufacturing and engineering. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2014, pp. 69–88. DOI: 10.1515/9783110267488.69.

88.

Censi

Gigliobianco

Casadidio

, et al. Hot melt extrusion: highlighting physicochemical factors to be investigated while designing and optimizing a hot melt extrusion process. Pharmaceutics 2018; 10(3): 89. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics10030089.

89.

Lin

, et al. Ultrasonication-induced modification of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles onto a 3d porous poly(lactic acid) scaffold with improved mechanical properties and biocompatibility. Macromol Mater Eng 2019; 304: 1900081. DOI: 10.1002/mame.201900081.

90.

Hassanajili

Karami-Pour

Ahmad

, et al. Preparation and characterization of PLA/PCL/HA composite scaffolds using indirect, 3 printing for bone tissue engineering, Mater Sci Eng C 2019; 104: 109960, ISSN 0928-4931. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.109960.

91.

Spanou

Diez-Escudero

, et al. 3D-printed PLA/HA composite structures as synthetic trabecular bone: a feasibility study using fused deposition modeling. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020; 103: 103608. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103608.

92.

Ezati

Safavipour

Houshmand

, et al. Development of a PCL/gelatin/chitosan/β-TCP electrospun composite for guided bone regeneration. Prog Biomater 2018; 7(3): 225–237. Epub 2018 Sep 21. DOI: 10.1007/s40204-018-0098-x.

93.

Wang

Sun

Zhang

, et al. Enhanced osteogenic proliferation and differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells on a porous n-HA/PGS-M composite scaffold. Sci Rep 2019; 9(1): 7960. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44478-8.

94.

Wei

, et al. Biodegradable materials for bone defect repair. Military Med Res 2020; 7: 54. DOI: 10.1186/s40779-020-00280-6.

95.

Geng

Ren

, et al. Hydroxyapatite-incorporation improves bone formation on endosseous PEEK implant in canine tibia. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2020; 18. DOI: 10.1177/2280800020975172.

96.

Jaramillo-Fierro

León

. Effect of doping TiO₂ NPs with lanthanides (La, Ce and Eu) on the adsorption and photodegradation of cyanide—a comparative study. Nanomaterials 2023; 13: 1068. DOI: 10.3390/nano13061068.

97.

Yang

Jiang

Xiao

, et al. Robust silica–agarose composite aerogels with interpenetrating network structure by in situ sol–gel process. Gels 2022; 8: 303. DOI: 10.3390/gels8050303.

98.

Jaafar

Hecker

Árki

, et al. Sol-gel derived hydroxyapatite coatings for titanium implants: a review. Bioengineering (Basel) 2020; 7(4): 127. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering7040127.

99.

Maharjan

Kaliannagounder

Jang

, et al. In-situ polymerized polypyrrole nanoparticles immobilized poly(ε-caprolactone) electrospun conductive scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2020; 114: 111056. Epub 2020 May 6. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111056.

100.

Widodo

Mulyawan

Djustiana

, et al. synthesis and characterization of zirconia-silica PMMA nanocomposite for endodontic implants. Dent J 2023; 11(3): 57. DOI: 10.3390/dj11030057.

101.

Naik

Shivamurthy

Thimmappa

BHS

, et al. A review on processing methods and characterization techniques of green composites. Eng Sci 2022; 20: 80–99. DOI: 10.30919/es8d713.

102.

Chevali

Dean

Janowski

. Flexural creep behavior of discontinuous thermoplastic composites: non-linear viscoelastic modeling and time–temperature–stress superposition. Compos Appl Sci Manuf 2009; 40(6-7): 870–877. ISSN 1359–835X. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.04.012.

103.

Bose

Vahabzadeh

Amit

, Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing, Mater Today 2013; 16(12): 496–504, ISSN 1369–7021. DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2013.11.017.

104.

Kowsari

Akbari

Wang

, et al. High-efficiency high-resolution multimaterial fabrication for digital light processing-based three-dimensional printing. 3D Print Addit Manuf 2018; 5: 185–193. DOI: 10.1089/3dp.2018.0004.

105.

Begum

Krishnan

PSG

Kanny

. Properties of poly (lactic acid)/hydroxyapatite biocomposites for 3D printing feedstock material. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2023. DOI: 10.1177/08927057231182165.

106.

Kumar

Singh

, et al. ZnO nanoparticle-grafted PLA thermoplastic composites for 3D printing applications: tuning of thermal, mechanical, morphological and shape memory effect. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2022; 35(6): 799–825. DOI: 10.1177/0892705720925119.

107.

Xia

Lin

, et al. Microalgal-immobilized biocomposite scaffold fabricated by fused deposition modeling 3D printing technology for dyes removal ES Mater. Manuf 2020; 7: 40–50. DOI: 10.30919/esmm5f706.

108.

Pan

Geng

, et al. Biologically enhanced 3D printed micro-nano hybrid scaffolds doped with abalone shell for bone regeneration. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2023; 6: 10. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00593-1.

109.

Zhang

Villarreal

Cabrera

, et al. Performance study of ultrasonic assisted processing of CNT nanopaper/solventless epoxy composite. Compos Part B 2019; 159: 327–335. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.10.012.

110.

Zhang

Sun

Lee

, et al. Overview of ultrasonic assisted manufacturing multifunctional carbon nanotube nanopaper based polymer nanocomposites. Eng Sci 2020; 10: 35–50. DOI: 10.30919/es5e1002.

111.

Xie

Yao

et al. Comprehensive electrocatalytic degradation of tetracycline in wastewater by electrospun perovskite manganite nanoparticles supported on carbon nanofibers. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 2092–2105. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00550-y.

112.

Mhetre

Kanse

Chendake

. Influence of electrospinning voltage on the diameter and properties of 1-dimensional zinc oxide nanofiber. ES Mater & Manuf 2023; 20: 838. DOI: 10.30919/esmm5f838.

113.

Ziyadi

Baghali

Bagherianfar

, et al. An investigation of factors affecting the electrospinning of poly (vinyl alcohol)/kefiran composite nanofibers. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2021; 4: 768–779. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-021-00230-3.

114.

Konyalı

Deliormanlı

. Preparation and mineralization of 13-93 bioactive glass-containing electrospun poly-epsilon-caprolactone composite nanofibrous mats. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2019; 32(5): 690–709. DOI: 10.1177/0892705718772889.

115.

Xue

Dai

, et al. Electrospinning and electrospun nanofibers: methods, materials, and applications. Chem Rev 2019; 119(8): 5298–5415. Epub 2019 Mar 27. DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00593.

116.

Casanova

Reis

Martins

, et al. The use of electrospinning technique on osteochondral tissue engineering. In: Oliveira

Pina

Reis

, (eds). Osteochondral tissue engineering. Advances in experimental medicine and biology, vol. 1058. Cham: Springer, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-76711-6_11.

117.

Zhu

Wang

, et al. Electrospun poly(vinyl alcohol)/silica film for radiative cooling. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2022; 5: 1966–1975. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00529-9.

118.

Liu

Qin

, et al. Electrospun PVDF/PAN membrane for pressure sensor and sodium-ion battery separator. Adv Compos Hybrid Mater 2021; 4: 1215–1225. DOI: 10.1007/s42114-021-00364-4.

119.

Jeyachandran

Bontha

Bodhak

, et al. Mechanical behaviour of additively manufactured bioactive glass/high density polyethylene composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020; 108: 103830. Epub 2020 Apr 30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103830.

Polymer-ceramic composites for bone challenging applications: Materials and manufacturing processes

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Biopolymers for bone tissue engineering

Bioceramics for bone regeneration

Recent biocomposite polymer-ceramic applied in bones regeneration

Various polymer-ceramic manufacturing processes

Conclusion and prospects

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References