Bone-related pathologies due to injuries, trauma, and disease are a burden on the current health system that will only continue to grow as the population’s life expectancy increases. The field of biomaterials aims to address these concerns by exploring, investigating, and optimizing bioregenerative grafts. In the context of bone regeneration, many biomaterials aim to achieve autograft-level regenerative properties, such as osteoconduction, osteoinduction, and low immunogenicity but also aim to address the disadvantages, such as the need for a secondary operation, donor site burden, and limited donor availability. Chitosan (CS) is a natural polymer well-studied in the field of biomaterials; it is known for its ease of fabrication, biocompatibility, antibacterial nature, and being a nonproteinaceous polysaccharide, which offers the advantage of low immunogenicity. However, CS lacks any osteogenic potential and is often combined with a bioceramic, creating a biocomposite scaffold. Bioceramics are ceramics specifically designed to aid bone regeneration due to their potential osteogenic properties. Although CS–bioceramic composites have been extensively studied, most research emphasizes their physicochemical properties, with limited attention to biological performance and in vivo outcomes. This review presents current findings on the regenerative potential of various CS–bioceramic composites, with a particular focus on in vitro and in vivo studies.
Impact Statement
This review explores the potential of chitosan (CS)–bioceramic composites in bone regeneration, with a focus on in vitro and in vivo studies. These composites combine the bioactivity of ceramics with the biocompatibility of CS, offering promising outcomes for bone healing. By critically analyzing recent advancements and identifying research gaps, the article provides valuable insights for developing sustainable and effective bone graft materials.
CoppDH, ShimSS. The homeostatic function of bone as a mineral reservoir. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1963; 16:738–744; doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(63)90081-1
2.
SaravananS, LeenaRS, SelvamuruganN. Chitosan based biocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 2016; 93(Pt B):1354–1365; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.01.112
3.
AwadHA, O’KeefeRJ, LeeCH, et al.Bone tissue engineering: Clinical challenges and emergent advances in orthopedic and craniofacial surgery. In: LanzaR, LangerR, VacantiJ, eds. Principles of Tissue Engineering. 4th ed. Boston: Academic Press; 2014:1733–1743. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-398358-9.00083-1
4.
MaoJJ, ProckopDJ. Stem cells in the face: Tooth regeneration and beyond. Cell Stem Cell, 2012; 11(3):291–301; doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2012.08.010
5.
ZhangM, MatinlinnaJP, TsoiJKH, et al.Recent developments in biomaterials for long-bone segmental defect reconstruction: A narrative overview. J Orthop Translat, 2020; 22:26–33; doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2019.09.005
6.
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
7.
NantavisaiS, EgusaH, OsathanonT, et al.Mesenchymal stem cell-based bone tissue engineering for veterinary practice. Heliyon, 2019; 5(11):e02808; doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02808
8.
AminabhaviTM, DharupaneediSP, MoreUA, et al.The role of nanotechnology and chitosan-based biomaterials for tissue engineering and therapeutic delivery. In: JenningsJA, BumgardnerJD, eds. Chitosan Based Biomaterials Volume 2. Woodhead Publishing; 2017:1–29. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100228-5.00001-8
9.
Harish PrashanthKV, TharanathanRN. Chitin/chitosan: Modifications and their unlimited application potential—An overview. Trends Food Sci Technol, 2007; 18(3):117–131; doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2006.10.022
10.
KantakMN, BharateSS. Analysis of clinical trials on biomaterial and therapeutic applications of chitosan: A review. Carbohydr Polym, 2022; 278:118999; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118999
11.
SampathUGTM, ChingYC, ChuahCH, et al.Preparation and characterization of nanocellulose reinforced semi-interpenetrating polymer network of chitosan hydrogel. Cellulose, 2017; 24(5):2215–2228; doi: 10.1007/s10570-017-1251-8
12.
SahranavardM, ZamanianA, GhorbaniF, et al.A critical review on three dimensional-printed chitosan hydrogels for development of tissue engineering. Bioprinting, 2020; 17:e00063; doi: 10.1016/j.bprint.2019.e00063
13.
VunainE, MishraAK, MambaBB, et al.Fundamentals of chitosan for biomedical applications. In: JenningsJA, BumgardnerJD, eds. Chitosan Based Biomaterials Volume 1. Woodhead Publishing; 2017:3–30. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100230-8.00001-4
14.
WeiS, ChingYC, ChuahCH. Synthesis of chitosan aerogels as promising carriers for drug delivery: A review. Carbohydr Polym, 2020; 231:115744; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115744
15.
SiniTK, SanthoshS, MathewPT. Study on the production of chitin and chitosan from shrimp shell by using Bacillus subtilis fermentation. Carbohydr Res, 2007; 342(16):2423–2429; doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2007.06.028
16.
BautistaJ, JoverM, GutierrezJF, et al.Preparation of crayfish chitin by in situ lactic acid production. Process Biochem, 2001; 37(3):229–234; doi: 10.1016/S0032-9592(01)00202-3
17.
El KnidriH, DahmaniJ, AddaouA, et al.Rapid and efficient extraction of chitin and chitosan for scale-up production: Effect of process parameters on deacetylation degree and molecular weight. Int J Biol Macromol, 2019; 139:1092–1102; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.079
18.
KabalakM, AracagökD, TorunM. Extraction, characterization and comparison of chitins from large bodied four Coleoptera and Orthoptera species. Int J Biol Macromol, 2020; 145:402–409; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.12.194
19.
XinR, XieW, XuZ, et al.Efficient extraction of chitin from shrimp waste by mutagenized strain fermentation using atmospheric and room-temperature plasma. Int J Biol Macromol, 2020; 155:1561–1568; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.138
20.
SalernoA, PascualCD. Bio-based polymers, supercritical fluids and tissue engineering. Process Biochem, 2015; 50(5):826–838; doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2015.02.009
21.
KochBE, StougaardJ, SpainkHP. Keeping track of the growing number of biological functions of chitin and its interaction partners in biomedical research. Glycobiology, 2015; 25(5):469–482; doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwv005
22.
HoemannCD, FongD. Immunological responses to chitosan for biomedical applications. In: JenningsJA, BumgardnerJD., eds. Chitosan Based Biomaterials Volume 1. Woodhead Publishing; 2017:45–79. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100230-8.00003-8
23.
PillaiCKS, PaulW, SharmaCP. Chitin and chitosan polymers: Chemistry, solubility and fiber formation. Prog Polym Sci, 2009; 34(7):641–678; doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2009.04.001
24.
SongJ, FengH, WuM, et al.Preparation and characterization of arginine-modified chitosan/hydroxypropyl methylcellose antibacterial film. Int J Biol Macromol, 2020; 145:750–758; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.12.141
25.
MengX, XingR, LiuS, et al.Molecular weight and pH effects of aminoethyl modified chitosan on antibacterial activity in vitro. Int J Biol Macromol, 2012; 50(4):918–924; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.01.018
26.
MoonC, SeoDJ, SongYS, et al.Antibacterial activity of various chitosan forms against Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. glycines. Int J Biol Macromol, 2020; 156:1600–1605; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.07.079
27.
XingK, ZhuX, PengX, et al.Chitosan antimicrobial and eliciting properties for pest control in agriculture: A review. Agron Sustain Dev, 2015; 35(2):569–588; doi: 10.1007/s13593-014-0252-3
28.
YinM, WangX, LiY, et al.Novel quaternarized N-halamine chitosan and polyvinyl alcohol nanofibrous membranes as hemostatic materials with excellent antibacterial properties. Carbohydr Polym, 2020; 232:115823; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115823
29.
SuZ, HanQ, ZhangF, et al.Preparation, characterization and antibacterial properties of 6-deoxy-6-arginine modified chitosan. Carbohydr Polym, 2020; 230:115635; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.115635
30.
PackirisamyRG, GovindasamyC, SanmugamA, et al.Synthesis of novel Sn1-xZnxO-chitosan nanocomposites: Structural, morphological and luminescence properties and investigation of antibacterial properties. Int J Biol Macromol, 2019; 138:546–555; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.07.120
31.
GoyRC, de BrittoD, AssisOBG. A review of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan. Polímeros, 2009; 19(3):241–247; doi: 10.1590/S0104-14282009000300013
32.
ComaV, DeschampsA, Martial-GrosA, et al.Bioactive packaging materials from edible chitosan polymer—Antimicrobial activity assessment on dairy-related contaminants. J Food Sci, 2003; 68:2788–2792; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb05784.x
SharmaC, DindaAK, PotdarPD, et al.Fabrication and characterization of novel nano-biocomposite scaffold of chitosan–gelatin–alginate–hydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2016; 64:416–427; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.03.060
35.
Ait SaidH, MabroumH, LahciniM, et al.Manufacturing methods, properties, and potential applications in bone tissue regeneration of hydroxyapatite-chitosan biocomposites: A review. Int J Biol Macromol, 2023; 243:125150; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.125150
36.
KastenP, BeyenI, NiemeyerP, et al.Porosity and pore size of β-tricalcium phosphate scaffold can influence protein production and osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells: An in vitro and in vivo study. Acta Biomater, 2008; 4(6):1904–1915; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.05.017
37.
FengX. Chemical and biochemical basis of cell-bone matrix interaction in health and disease. Curr Chem Biol, 2009; 3(2):189–196; doi: 10.2174/187231309788166398
38.
AbdianN, Soltani ZangbarH, EtminanfarM, et al.3D chitosan/hydroxyapatite scaffolds containing mesoporous SiO2-HA particles: A new step to healing bone defects. Int J Biol Macromol, 2024; 278(Pt 4):135014; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.135014
39.
HuangJ, RatnayakeJ, RameshN, et al.Development and characterization of a biocomposite material from chitosan and New Zealand-sourced bovine-derived hydroxyapatite for bone regeneration. ACS Omega, 2020; 5(27):16537–16546; doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c01168
40.
TürkS, AltınsoyI, Çelebi EfeG, et al.3D porous collagen/functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotube/chitosan/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2018; 92:757–768.
41.
AzamanFA, DaubinéF, LebatardA, et al.Chitosan/hydroxyapatite scaffolds with P28 as a promising osteoinductive scaffold for bone healing applications. Micro, 2023; 3(1):118–142; doi: 10.3390/micro3010010
42.
BozdagM, UrekF, CesurS, et al.Bovine serum albumin (BSA)-loaded polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)/chitosan (CH)/hydroxyapatite (HA) electrospun nanofibers for bone tissue regeneration. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol, 2025; 106:106712.
43.
Khaled WassifR, DaihomBA, ManiruzzamanM. FRESH 3D printing of zoledronic acid-loaded chitosan/alginate/hydroxyapatite composite thermosensitive hydrogel for promoting bone regeneration. Int J Pharm, 2024; 667(Pt A):124898; doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2024.124898
44.
SathiyavimalS, VasantharajS, MattheosN, et al.Mussel shell-derived biogenic hydroxyapatite as reinforcement on chitosan-loaded gentamicin composite for antibacterial activity and bone regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol, 2024; 278(Pt 2):134143; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.134143
45.
WangH, SunR, HuangS, et al.Fabrication and properties of hydroxyapatite/chitosan composite scaffolds loaded with periostin for bone regeneration. Heliyon, 2024; 10(5):e25832; doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25832
46.
CabralCSD, de Melo-DiogoD, FerreiraP, et al.Reduced graphene oxide–reinforced tricalcium phosphate/gelatin/chitosan light-responsive scaffolds for application in bone regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol, 2024; 259(Pt 2):129210; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.129210
47.
VuBT, LeTTT, NguyenDT, et al.Fabrication of in situ crosslinking hydrogels based on oxidized alginate/N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan/β-tricalcium phosphate for bone regeneration. J Sci Adv Mater Devices, 2022; 7(4):100503; doi: 10.1016/j.jsamd.2022.100503
48.
DehghaniN, HaghiralsadatF, YazdianF, et al.Chitosan/silk fibroin/nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dot/α-tricalcium phosphate nanocomposite electrospinned as a scaffold for wound healing application: In vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Biol Macromol, 2023; 238:124078; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124078
49.
TorresPMC, RibeiroN, NunesCMM, et al.Toughening robocast chitosan/biphasic calcium phosphate composite scaffolds with silk fibroin: Tuning printable inks and scaffold structure for bone regeneration. Biomater Adv, 2022; 134:112690; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2022.112690
50.
Gutiérrez-SánchezM, Escobar-BarriosVA, Pozos-GuillénA, et al.Design, characterization, and biocompatibility of chitosan-nano-hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate sponges. Tissue Cell, 2025; 94:102804; doi: 10.1016/j.tice.2025.102804
51.
Escobar JaramilloM, CovarrubiasC, Patiño GonzálezE, et al.Optimization by mixture design of chitosan/multi-phase calcium phosphate/BMP-2 biomimetic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2024; 152:106423; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2024.106423
52.
LiuS, ZengTH, HofmannM, et al.Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene oxide: Membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano, 2011; 5(9):6971–6980; doi: 10.1021/nn202451x
53.
HashimotoK, BabaM, ShibataH, et al.Enhanced sinterability and mechanical strength of beta-type tricalcium phosphates ceramics through reaction sintering with hydroxyapatite. J Eur Ceram Soc, 2025; 45(4):117023; doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2024.117023
54.
HenchLL, SplinterRJ, AllenW, et al.Bonding mechanisms at the interface of ceramic prosthetic materials. J Biomed Mater Res, 1971; 5(6):117–141; doi: 10.1002/jbm.820050611
55.
VukajlovicD, ParkerJ, BretcanuO, et al.Chitosan based polymer/bioglass composites for tissue engineering applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 96:955–967; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.12.026
56.
ThibaultM-H, ComeauC, VienneauG, et al.Assessing the potential of boronic acid/chitosan/bioglass composite materials for tissue engineering applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2020; 110:110674; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.110674
57.
LiuJ, WangH, ZhangJ, et al.Rapid hemostasis and excellent antibacterial cerium-containing mesoporous bioactive glass/chitosan composite sponge for hemostatic material. Mater Today Chem, 2022; 23:100735; doi: 10.1016/j.mtchem.2021.100735
58.
ChenQ, WuJ, LiuY, et al.Electrospun chitosan/PVA/bioglass nanofibrous membrane with spatially designed structure for accelerating chronic wound healing. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2019; 105:110083; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110083
59.
SinghBN, VeereshV, MallickSP, et al.Design and evaluation of chitosan/chondroitin sulfate/nano-bioglass based composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 2019; 133:817–830; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.107
60.
El-SayedSAM, MahmoudMM, El-KadyAM, et al.Antibacterial, drug delivery, and osteoinduction abilities of bioglass/chitosan scaffolds for dental applications. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol, 2020; 57:101757; doi: 10.1016/j.jddst.2020.101757
61.
ManjubaashiniN, BargaviP, ThomasNG, et al.Chitosan bioactive glass scaffolds for in vivo subcutaneous implantation, toxicity assessment, and diabetic wound healing upon animal model. Int J Biol Macromol, 2024; 256(Pt 1):128291; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128291
62.
WuS, ChengX, XuX, et al.In vivo and in vitro evaluation of chitosan-modified bioactive glass paste for wound healing. J Mater Chem B, 2022; 10(4):598–606; doi: 10.1039/d1tb02083h
63.
PáduaAS, FigueiredoL, SilvaJC, et al.Chitosan scaffolds with mesoporous hydroxyapatite and mesoporous bioactive glass. Prog Biomater, 2023; 12(2):137–153.
64.
BiglariL, NaghdiM, PoursamarSA, et al.A route toward fabrication of 3D printed bone scaffolds based on poly(vinyl alcohol)–chitosan/bioactive glass by sol–gel chemistry. Int J Biol Macromol, 2024; 258(Pt 1):128716; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128716
65.
TamaraFR, LinC, MiFL, et al.Antibacterial effects of chitosan/cationic peptide nanoparticles. Nanomaterials (Basel), 2018; 8(2):88; doi: 10.3390/nano8020088
66.
BalagangadharanK, Viji ChandranS, ArumugamB, et al.Chitosan/nano-hydroxyapatite/nano-zirconium dioxide scaffolds with miR-590-5p for bone regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol, 2018; 111:953–958; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.01.122
67.
PattnaikS, NethalaS, TripathiA, et al.Chitosan scaffolds containing silicon dioxide and zirconia nano particles for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol, 2011; 49(5):1167–1172; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2011.09.016
68.
PatilNA, KandasubramanianB. Biological and mechanical enhancement of zirconium dioxide for medical applications. Ceram Int, 2020; 46(4):4041–4057; doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.10.220
69.
CalesB, StefaniY. Mechanical properties and surface analysis of retrieved zirconia hip joint heads after an implantation time of two to three years. J Mater Sci: Mater Med, 1994; 5(6–7):376–380; doi: 10.1007/BF00058967
70.
McLarenEA, GiordanoRA. Zirconia-based ceramics: Material properties, esthetics and layering techniques of a new veneering porcelain, VM9. Quintessence Dent Technol, 2005; 28:99–111.
71.
NamKW, YooJJ, KooK-H, et al.Optimal sterilization method for the zirconia/alumina composites used for total hip replacements. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2009; 90(2):962–966; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31358
72.
IonitaD, VardakiM, StanMS, et al.Enhance stability and in vitro cell response to a bioinspired coating on Zr alloy with increasing chitosan content. J Bionic Eng, 2017; 14(3):459–467; doi: 10.1016/S1672-6529(16)60411-0
73.
BhowmickA, JanaP, PramanikN, et al.Multifunctional zirconium oxide doped chitosan based hybrid nanocomposites as bone tissue engineering materials. Carbohydr Polym, 2016; 151:879–888; doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.06.034
74.
GaihreB, JayasuriyaAC. Comparative investigation of porous nano-hydroxyapaptite/chitosan, nano-zirconia/chitosan and novel nano-calcium zirconate/chitosan composite scaffolds for their potential applications in bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C, 2018; 91:330–339; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.05.060
75.
BhowmickA, JanaP, PramanikN, et al.Development of bone-like zirconium oxide nanoceramic modified chitosan based porous nanocomposites for biomedical application. Int J Biol Macromol, 2017; 95:348–356; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.11.052
76.
RittidachT, TithitoT, SuntornsaratoonP, et al.Effect of zirconia-mullite incorporated biphasic calcium phosphate/biopolymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomed Phys Eng Express, 2020; 6(5):055004; doi: 10.1088/2057-1976/aba1c2
77.
MaghsoudlouMA, NassireslamiE, Saber-SamandariS, et al.Bone regeneration using bio-nanocomposite tissue reinforced with bioactive nanoparticles for femoral defect applications in medicine. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol, 2020; 12:68–76.
78.
ShanmugamBK, RangarajS, SubramaniK, et al.Biomimetic development of chitosan and sodium alginate‐based nanocomposites contains zirconia for tissue engineering applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2022; 110(8):1942–1955; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.35052
79.
WangL, QiuY, GuoY, et al.Smart, elastic, and nanofiber-based 3D scaffolds with self-deploying capability for osteoporotic bone regeneration. Nano Lett, 2019; 19(12):9112–9120; doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b04313
80.
KalyoncuogluUT, YilmazB, Koc-GurS, et al.Investigation of surface structure and biocompatibility of chitosan-coated zirconia and alumina dental abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2018; 20(6):1022–1029; doi: 10.1111/cid.12665
81.
AdellR, HanssonB, BrånemarkP, et al.Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg, 1970; 4(1):19–34; doi: 10.3109/02844317009038440
82.
KhodaeiM, ValanezhadA, WatanabeI, et al.Surface and mechanical properties of modified porous titanium scaffold. Surf Coat Technol, 2017; 315:61–66; doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.02.032
83.
HanawaT. Biofunctionalization of titanium for dental implant. Jpn Dent Sci Rev, 2010; 46(2):93–101; doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2009.11.001
84.
Mesquita-GuimarãesJ, SouzaJCM, HenriquesB, et al.Nanostructured biocompatible ceramics and glass-ceramics. In: Souza JCM, HotzaD, HenriquesB, BoccacciniAR, eds. Nanostructured Biomaterials for Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Applications. Elsevier; 2018:97–118. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814621-7.00006-0
85.
WangX, XuS, ZhouS, et al.Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: A review. Biomaterials, 2016; 83:127–141; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.01.012
86.
HuangN, YangP, LengYX, et al.Hemocompatibility of titanium oxide films. Biomaterials, 2003; 24(13):2177–2187; doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00046-2
87.
HanawaT. Titanium–tissue interface reaction and its control with surface treatment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2019; 7:170; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00170
88.
MokhtariH, GhasemiZ, KharazihaM, et al.Chitosan-58S bioactive glass nanocomposite coatings on TiO2 nanotube: Structural and biological properties. Appl Surf Sci, 2018; 441:138–149; doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.01.314
89.
KandelR, KimY, KimD, et al.Biomimetic cell–substrate of chitosan-cross-linked polyaniline patterning on TiO2 nanotubes enables hBM-MSCs to differentiate the osteoblast cell type. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2021; 13(39):47100–47117; doi: 10.1021/acsami.1c09778
90.
HashemiA, EzatiM, MohammadnejadJ, et al.Chitosan coating of TiO2 nanotube arrays for improved metformin release and osteoblast differentiation. Int J Nanomedicine, 2020; 15:4471–4481; doi: 10.2147/IJN.S248927
91.
LimS, ZuH, LohHS. Chitosan-TiO2 nanotubes scaffolds for proliferation and early differentiation of MG63 by functionalization with fetal bovine serum. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng, 2021; 1195(1):12041; doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1195/1/012041
92.
LimSS, ChaiCY, LohHS. In vitro evaluation of osteoblast adhesion, proliferation and differentiation on chitosan-TiO2 nanotubes scaffolds with Ca2+ ions. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2017; 76:144–152; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.075
93.
PanC, LiuT, ZhangZ, et al.Preparation of chitosan-Zn2+ complex coating on polydopamine-modified TiO2 nanotubes to enhance osteoblast behaviors. Mater Lett, 2021; 282:128665; doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2020.128665
94.
Gilabert-ChirivellaE, Pérez-FeitoR, RibeiroC, et al.Chitosan patterning on titanium implants. Prog Org Coat, 2017; 111:23–28; doi: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2017.04.027
95.
GuoN, ZhangJ, WangW, et al.Novel fabrication of morphology tailored nanostructures with gelatin/chitosan co-polymeric bio-composited hydrogel system to accelerate bone fracture healing and hard tissue nursing care management. Process Biochem, 2020; 90:177–183; doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2019.11.016
96.
IkonoR, LiN, PratamaNH, et al.Enhanced bone regeneration capability of chitosan sponge coated with TiO2 nanoparticles. Biotechnol Rep (Amst), 2019; 24:e00350.
97.
Palla-RubioB, Araújo-GomesN, Fernández-GutiérrezM, et al.Synthesis and characterization of silica-chitosan hybrid materials as antibacterial coatings for titanium implants. Carbohydr Polym, 2019; 203:331–341.
98.
ParkKH, KimS-J, JeongY-H, et al.Fabrication and biological properties of calcium phosphate/chitosan composite coating on titanium in modified SBF. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2018; 90:113–118.
99.
KhanS, GargM, ChockalingamS, et al.TiO2 doped chitosan/poly (vinyl alcohol) nanocomposite film with enhanced mechanical properties for application in bone tissue regeneration. Int J Biol Macromol, 2020; 143:285–296; doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.12.035
100.
ChenW, XuK, TaoB, et al.Multilayered coating of titanium implants promotes coupled osteogenesis and angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Acta Biomater, 2018; 74:489–504; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.04.043
101.
UluA, BirhanlıE, KöytepeS, et al.Chitosan/polypropylene glycol hydrogel composite film designed with TiO2 nanoparticles: A promising scaffold of biomedical applications. Int J Biol Macromol, 2020; 163:529–540.
102.
BumgardnerJD, ChesnuttBM, YuanY, et al.The integration of chitosan-coated titanium in bone: An in vivo study in rabbits. Implant Dent, 2007; 16(1):66–79.
103.
Grande TovarCD, CastroJI, ValenciaCH, et al.Synthesis of chitosan beads incorporating graphene oxide/titanium dioxide nanoparticles for in vivo studies. Molecules, 2020; 25(10):2308.
104.
YinX, LiY, YangC, et al.Alginate/chitosan modified immunomodulatory titanium implants for promoting osteogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2021; 124:112087; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2021.112087
