Natural bone regeneration often falls short for complex or large defects, making costly bone grafting procedures a necessary intervention. Tissue engineering provides promising alternatives, and biomaterial selection is strongly crucial for its success. This study provides a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2024, comparing research trends on 35 biomaterials or regenerative strategies in bone regeneration, as well as active countries, clinical trials, and both animal and bone defect models. Our findings reveal declining trends for some calcium phosphate materials (i.e., biphasic calcium phosphate and tricalcium phosphate), stable trends for hydroxyapatite, and increasing research engagement for bioactive glasses and several natural polymers (i.e., silk fibroin, chitosan, alginate, gelatin, hyaluronic acid, and cellulose). However, collagen showed a declining research interest. From synthetic polymers, polycaprolactone is gaining research interest, while polylactic-co-glycolic acid and poly(methyl methacrylate) are declining. Newer advancements (i.e., exosomes, polydopamine coating, and graphene-based materials), gene therapy strategies, and peptides showed growth. Conversely, calcium sulfate, bone morphogenetic proteins, and platelet-rich plasma are declining. These comparative insights inform future research and biomaterial selection in bone regeneration.
Impact Statement
This is the first bibliometric comparison of various biomaterials and regenerative strategies for bone regeneration, analyzing global publication trends from 2000 to 2024. The study reveals which biomaterials are gaining research momentum and which are losing focus, offering a strategic lens for future investigation and clinical translation.
DuJ, ZhouT, PengW. Functional polysaccharide-based hydrogel in bone regeneration: From fundamentals to advanced applications. Carbohydr Polym, 2025; 352:123138.
2.
EsteMD, EglinD, AliniM, et al.Bone regeneration with biomaterials and active molecules delivery. Curr Pharm Biotechnol, 2015; 16(7):582–605.
3.
GillmanCE, JayasuriyaAC. FDA-approved bone grafts and bone graft substitute devices in bone regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2021; 130:112466.
4.
GaoQ, JiangY, ZhouD, et al.Advanced glycation end products mediate biomineralization disorder in diabetic bone disease. Cell Rep Med, 2024; 5(9):101694.
5.
GongT, XieJ, LiaoJ, et al.Nanomaterials and bone regeneration. Bone Res, 2015; 3(1):15029.
6.
GuanS, ZhangZ, WuJ. Non-coding RNA delivery for bone tissue engineering: Progress, challenges, and potential solutions. iScience, 2022; 25(8):104807; doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104807
7.
CampanaV, MilanoG, PaganoE, et al.Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: From basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2014; 25(10):2445–2461.
8.
AiS, XieZ, LiN, et al.Bibliometric and visualized analysis of the applications of exosomes for bone regeneration. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2025; 13:1552727; doi: 10.3389/fcell.2025.1552727
9.
BharadwazA, JayasuriyaAC. Recent trends in the application of widely used natural and synthetic polymer nanocomposites in bone tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl, 2020; 110:110698; doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.110698
10.
Szwed-GeorgiouA, PłocińskiP, Kupikowska-StobbaB, et al.Bioactive materials for bone regeneration: Biomolecules and delivery systems. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2023; 9(9):5222–5254; doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c00609
11.
Broken Bones, Broken Lives: A Roadmap to Solve the Fragility Fracture Crisis in Europe. International Osteoporosis Foundation; 2018.
12.
BrownMJ, CarterT. ACL allograft: Advantages and when to use. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev, 2018; 26(2):75–78.
13.
BaldwinP, LiDJ, AustonDA, et al.Autograft, allograft, and bone graft substitutes: Clinical evidence and indications for use in the setting of orthopaedic trauma surgery. J Orthop Trauma, 2019; 33(4):203–213.
14.
ZhangH, LiX, JiaZ, et al.Bioprinted hydrogels in bone regeneration: A bibliometric analysis. Front Pharmacol, 2025; 16:1532629.
15.
JenuwineES, FloydJA. Comparison of Medical Subject Headings and text-word searches in MEDLINE to retrieve studies on sleep in healthy individuals. J Med Libr Assoc, 2004; 92(3):349–353.
16.
JinM-J, GaoY, TianJ. A bibliometric and knowledge-map study on the treatment of hematological malignancies with CAR-T cells from 2012 to 2023: A correspondence. Hum Vaccin Immunother, 2024; 20(1):2386223.
17.
MadivalH, RajivA, MunirajuC, et al.Advancements in bioactive glasses: A comparison of silicate, borate, and phosphate network based materials. Biomedical Materials & Devices, 2026; 4(1):425–445.
18.
RamanathanS, LinY-C, ThirumuruganS, et al.Poly (methyl methacrylate) in orthopedics: Strategies, challenges, and prospects in bone tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel), 2024; 16(3):367.
19.
HeoS, ChanAY, Diaz PeraltaP, et al.Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists’ productivity in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and medicine fields. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 2022; 9(1):434.
20.
SohrabiC, MathewG, FranchiT, et al.Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on scientific research and implications for clinical academic training–a review. Int J Surg, 2021; 86:57–63.
21.
ElliottIS, SonshineDB, AkhavanS, et al.What factors influence the production of orthopaedic research in East Africa? A qualitative analysis of interviews. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2015; 473(6):2120–2130; doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4254-5
22.
AdambekovS, AskarovaS, WelburnSC, et al.Publication productivity in Central Asia and countries of the former soviet union. Cent Asian J Glob Health, 2016; 5(1):261; doi: 10.5195/cajgh.2016.261
23.
MiremadiT, SalekdehGH, AghdamiN, et al.Stem cell research and therapy in the Islamic republic of Iran: Pioneering in the Islamic world. Stem Cells Dev, 2013; 22(1):51–57.
24.
SanieiM. Human embryonic stem cell science and policy: The case of Iran. Soc Sci Med, 2013; 98(100):345–350.
25.
AfsharL, AghayanH-R, SadighiJ, et al.Ethics of research on stem cells and regenerative medicine: Ethical guidelines in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2020; 11(1):396.
26.
PoulosJ. The limited application of stem cells in medicine: A review. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2018; 9(1):1–11.
27.
FurkoM, BalázsiK, BalázsiC. Calcium phosphate loaded biopolymer composites—a comprehensive review on the most recent progress and promising trends. Coatings, 2023; 13(2):360.
28.
WangS, PengX, ZhongL, et al.An ultralight, elastic, cost-effective, and highly recyclable superabsorbent from microfibrillated cellulose fibers for oil spillage cleanup. J Mater Chem A, 2015; 3(16):8772–8781.
29.
RaeissadatSA, RahimiM, RayeganiSM, et al.Cost-utility analysis and net monetary benefit of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), intra-articular injections in compared to Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF), Hyaluronic Acid (HA) and ozone in knee osteoarthritis in Iran. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2023; 24(1):22.
30.
SebbaghP, CannoneA, GremionG, et al.Current status of PRP manufacturing requirements & European regulatory frameworks: Practical tools for the appropriate implementation of PRP therapies in musculoskeletal regenerative medicine. Bioengineering (Basel), 2023; 10(3):292.
KaewprasitK, KobayashiT, DamrongsakkulS. Thai silk fibroin gelation process enhancing by monohydric and polyhydric alcohols. Int J Biol Macromol, 2018; 118(Pt B):1726–1735.
33.
WongputtaraksaT, RatanavarapornJ, PichyangkuraR, et al.Surface modification of Thai silk fibroin scaffolds with gelatin and chitooligosaccharide for enhanced osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow‐derived mesenchymal stem cells. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2012; 100(8):2307–2315.
34.
MalayAD, SatoR, YazawaK, et al.Relationships between physical properties and sequence in silkworm silks. Sci Rep, 2016; 6(1):27573.
35.
FungmongkonsateanT, JongjitwimolJ, PaensuwanP, et al.Hemocompatibility evaluation of Thai Bombyx mori silk fibroin and its improvement with low molecular weight heparin immobilization. Polymers (Basel), 2022; 14(14):2943.
36.
RodriguesSN, GonçalvesIC, MartinsM, et al.Fibrinogen adsorption, platelet adhesion and activation on mixed hydroxyl-/methyl-terminated self-assembled monolayers. Biomaterials, 2006; 27(31):5357–5367.
37.
IberBT, KasanNA, TorsaboD, et al.A review of various sources of chitin and chitosan in nature. J Renew Mater, 2022; 10(4):1097.
38.
WahjuningrumDA, SubijantoA, TaqiyaAK, et al.Cytotoxicity of chitosan derived from shrimp for bone scaffold on adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Asia Pac J Med Toxicol, 2019; 8(4):115–117.
39.
ChuCR, SzczodryM, BrunoS. Animal models for cartilage regeneration and repair. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2010; 16(1):105–115.
40.
BagiCM, BerrymanE, MoalliMR. Comparative bone anatomy of commonly used laboratory animals: Implications for drug discovery. Comp Med, 2011; 61(1):76–85.
41.
Abdel-HaffiezSH, KhalilNM. Effect of platelet rich plasma injection on bone formation in the expanded mid-palatal suture in rabbits: A randomized controlled animal study. BMC Oral Health, 2024; 24(1):167; doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-03922-6
42.
DietrichWF, CopelandNG, GilbertDJ, et al.Mapping the mouse genome: Current status and future prospects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1995; 92(24):10849–10853; doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.24.10849
43.
BrydaEC. The Mighty Mouse: The impact of rodents on advances in biomedical research. Mo Med, 2013; 110(3):207–211.
44.
MazinaniM, RudeB. Population, world production and quality of sheep and goat products. Am J Anim Vet Sci, 2020; 15(4):291–299.
45.
RoutPK, BeheraBK, RoutPK, et al.Goat and sheep farming. Sustainability in ruminant livestock: Management and marketing. 2021;33-76.
46.
MateosG, CorralesN, TalegónG, et al.Pig meat production in the European Union-27: Current status, challenges, and future trends. Anim Biosci, 2024; 37(4):755–774.
47.
SeeMT. Current status and future trends for pork production in the United States of America and Canada. Anim Biosci, 2024; 37(4):775–785.
48.
McGovernJA, GriffinM, HutmacherDW. Animal models for bone tissue engineering and modelling disease. Dis Model Mech, 2018; 11(4):dmm033084; doi: 10.1242/dmm.033084
49.
ReichertJC, SaifzadehS, WullschlegerME, et al.The challenge of establishing preclinical models for segmental bone defect research. Biomaterials, 2009; 30(12):2149–2163; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.12.050
50.
TaylorWR, EhrigRM, HellerMO, et al.Tibio-femoral joint contact forces in sheep. J Biomech, 2006; 39(5):791–798; doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.02.006
51.
den BoerFC, PatkaP, BakkerFC, et al.New segmental long bone defect model in sheep: Quantitative analysis of healing with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Orthop Res, 1999; 17(5):654–660; doi: 10.1002/jor.1100170506
52.
SchindelerA, MillsRJ, BobynJD, et al.Preclinical models for orthopedic research and bone tissue engineering. J Orthop Res, 2018; 36(3):832–840; doi: 10.1002/jor.23824
53.
ShimataniA, ToyodaH, OritaK, et al.In vivo study on the healing of bone defect treated with non-thermal atmospheric pressure gas discharge plasma. PLoS One, 2021; 16(10):e0255861; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255861
54.
TouyaN, WashioA, KitamuraC, et al.In vivo application of silica-derived inks for bone tissue engineering: A 10-Year systematic review. Bioengineering (Basel), 2022; 9(8):388.
55.
HornerEA, KirkhamJ, WoodD, et al.Long bone defect models for tissue engineering applications: Criteria for choice. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2010; 16(2):263–271.
56.
FujiiT, UenoT, KagawaT, et al.Comparison of bone formation ingrafted periosteum harvested from tibia and calvaria. Microsc Res Tech, 2006; 69(7):580–584.
57.
GaoH, HuangJ, WeiQ, et al.Advances in animal models for studying bone fracture healing. Bioengineering (Basel), 2023; 10(2):201.
58.
Haffner-LuntzerM, IgnatiusA. Animal models for studying metaphyseal bone fracture healing. Eur Cell Mater, 2020; 40:172–188.
59.
MohdN, RazaliM, GhazaliMJ, et al.3D-printed hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphates-based scaffolds for alveolar bone regeneration in animal models: A scoping review. Materials (Basel), 2022; 15(7):2621.
60.
WancketL. Animal models for evaluation of bone implants and devices: Comparative bone structure and common model uses. Vet Pathol, 2015; 52(5):842–850.
61.
OmarN, BaharinB, LauS, et al.The influence of Ficus deltoidea in preserving alveolar bone in ovariectomized rats. Vet Med Int, 2020; 2020(1):8862489.
62.
WeiJ, ChenX, XuY, et al.Significance and considerations of establishing standardized critical values for critical size defects in animal models of bone tissue regeneration. Heliyon, 2024; 10(13):e33768.
63.
HuangEE, ZhangN, ShenH, et al.Novel techniques and future perspective for investigating critical-size bone defects. Bioengineering (Basel), 2022; 9(4):171.
64.
ShanbhagS, PandisN, MustafaK, et al.Alveolar bone tissue engineering in critical‐size defects of experimental animal models: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2017; 11(10):2935–2949.
65.
RachmawatiD, SaskiantiT, RidwanRD. Defining characteristics of critical size defects in animal models for alveolar bone regeneration therapies: A literature review. Journal of International Dental and Medical Research, 2024; 17(2):919–924.
66.
MukherjeeP, RoyS, GhoshD, et al.Role of animal models in biomedical research: A review. Lab Anim Res, 2022; 38(1):18.
67.
StokovicN, IvanjkoN, MaticicD, et al.Bone morphogenetic proteins, carriers, and animal models in the development of novel bone regenerative therapies. Materials (Basel), 2021; 14(13):3513.
68.
PearceA, RichardsR, MilzS, et al.Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: A review. Eur Cell Mater, 2007; 13(1):1–10.
69.
O’loughlinPF, MorrS, BogunovicL, et al.Selection and development of preclinical models in fracture-healing research. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2008; 90(Supplement_1):79–84.
70.
SillmannYM, EberP, OrbetaE, et al.Milestones in Mandibular bone tissue engineering: A systematic review of large animal models and critical-sized defects. J Clin Med, 2025; 14(8):2717.
71.
McLureSW, FisherJ, ConaghanPG, et al.Regional cartilage properties of three quadruped tibiofemoral joints used in musculoskeletal research studies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2012; 226(8):652–656.
72.
CipitriaA, WagermaierW, ZaslanskyP, et al.BMP delivery complements the guiding effect of scaffold architecture without altering bone microstructure in critical-sized long bone defects: A multiscale analysis. Acta Biomater, 2015; 23:282–294.
73.
TurnerAS. Animal models of osteoporosis—necessity and limitations. Eur Cell Mater, 2001; 1(66–81):66–81.
74.
SparksDS, SaifzadehS, SaviFM, et al.A preclinical large-animal model for the assessment of critical-size load-bearing bone defect reconstruction. Nat Protoc, 2020; 15(3):877–924.
75.
ChristouC, OliverRA, PelletierMH, et al.Ovine model for critical-size tibial segmental defects. Comp Med, 2014; 64(5):377–385.
76.
MoestT, SchlegelKA, KestingM, et al.A new standardized critical size bone defect model in the pig forehead for comparative testing of bone regeneration materials. Clin Oral Investig, 2020; 24(5):1651–1661.
77.
Anonymous Reviewer. Peer Review #2 of “Bibliometric analysis of research on the role of intestinal microbiota in obesity (v0.2)”. PeerJ, 2018; doi: 10.7287/peerj.5091v0.2/reviews/2
78.
PriceDJDS. Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press: 1963.
79.
DabiY, DarriguesL, KatsahianS, et al.Publication trends in bariatric surgery: A bibliometric study. Obes Surg, 2016; 26(11):2691–2699.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
