Bioceramics: a review on design concepts toward tailor-made (multi)-functional materials for tissue engineering applications
Source abstract
Abstract
Since the second half of the 20th century, bioceramics are widely used as a substitute for hard tissue engineering. Bioceramics including zirconia, alumina, hydroxyapatite, and bioactive glass plays a vital role in the design of tissue engineering scaffolds with tailor-made properties. The bioceramics scaffold has been used to replace or regenerate the tissue of the human body due to its excellent mechanical strength, biocompatibility, chemical stability, corrosion restriction behavior, and wear resistance. The advancement in technology has made the form of bioceramics and their function, structure, and composition more diversified, and manifold. Considering the promising role of the use of bioceramics in tissue engineering, we proposed this review, presenting the classification of bioceramics, their physiochemical properties, degradation pathway, product development so far, and their application in tissue engineering. The calcium phosphate and bioglass-based composite scaffold have also been discussed in detail. Furthermore, this paper also discussed the toxicity evaluation and market perspective of bioceramics. Thus, this review gives a complete insight into bioceramics for tissue engineering applications.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Fiume E, Ciavattini S, Verné E, Baino F (2021) Foam replica method in the manufacturing of bioactive glass scaffolds: out-of-date technology or still underexploited potential? Materials (Basel) 14:2795. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1411279510.3390/ma14112795 ↗
2. Singh P, Yu X, Kumar A, Dubey AK (2022) Recent advances in silicate-based crystalline bioceramics for orthopedic applications: a review. J Mater Sci 57:13109–13151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-022-07444-w10.1007/s10853-022-07444-w ↗
3. Ouyang J, Sun X, Chen X et al (2014) Preparation of layered bioceramic hydroxyapatite/sodium titanate coatings on titanium substrates using a hybrid technique of alkali-heat treatment and electrochemical deposition. J Mater Sci 49:1882–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-013-7879-310.1007/s10853-013-7879-3 ↗
4. Dorozhkin S (2009) Calcium Orthophosphates in nature, biology and medicine. Materials (Basel) 2:399–498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma202039910.3390/ma2020399 ↗
5. Sadat-Shojai M, Atai M, Nodehi A (2011) Design of experiments (DOE) for the optimization of hydrothermal synthesis of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. J Braz Chem Soc 22:571–582. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-5053201100030002310.1590/S0103-50532011000300023 ↗
6. Aggarwal A, Singh RP, Saggu HS (2022) Novel mesoporous cationic substituted hydroxyapatite particles for multipurpose applications. J Inorg Organomet Polym Mater 32:803–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-021-02175-y10.1007/s10904-021-02175-y ↗
7. Ploux L, Mateescu M, Guichaoua L et al (2016) New colloidal fabrication of bioceramics with controlled porosity for delivery of antibiotics. J Mater Sci 51:8861–8879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-0133-z10.1007/s10853-016-0133-z ↗
8. Mohan Babu M, Syam Prasad P, Venkateswara Rao P et al (2020) Influence of ZrO2 addition on structural and biological activity of phosphate glasses for bone regeneration. Materials (Basel) 13:4058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1318405810.3390/ma13184058 ↗
9. Sadat-Shojai M, Khorasani MT, Dinpanah-Khoshdargi E, Jamshidi A (2013) Synthesis methods for nanosized hydroxyapatite with diverse structures. Acta Biomater 9:7591–7621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.04.01210.1016/j.actbio.2013.04.012 ↗
10. Ali A, Ershad M, Hira S et al (2020) Mechanochemical and in vitro cytocompatibilityevaluation of zirconia modified silver substituted1393 bioactive glasses. Bol la Soc Esp Ceram y Vidr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bsecv.2020.07.00210.1016/j.bsecv.2020.07.002 ↗
11. Ng Z-N, Chan K-Y, Low C-Y et al (2015) Al and Ga doped ZnO films prepared by a sol–gel spin coating technique. Ceram Int 41:S254–S258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.03.18310.1016/j.ceramint.2015.03.183 ↗
12. Wei Z, Chen L, Thompson DM, Montoya LD (2014) Effect of particle size on in vitro cytotoxicity of titania and alumina nanoparticles. J Exp Nanosci 9:625–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/17458080.2012.68353410.1080/17458080.2012.683534 ↗
13. Dziadek M, Stodolak-Zych E, Cholewa-Kowalska K (2017) Biodegradable ceramic-polymer composites for biomedical applications: a review. Mater Sci Eng C 71:1175–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2016.10.01410.1016/j.msec.2016.10.014 ↗
14. Narayanan R, Seshadri SK, Kwon TY, Kim KH (2008) Calcium phosphate-based coatings on titanium and its alloys. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 85:279–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.3093210.1002/jbm.b.30932 ↗
15. Abbas Z, Dapporto M, Tampieri A, Sprio S (2021) Toughening of bioceramic composites for bone regeneration. J Compos Sci 5:259. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs510025910.3390/jcs5100259 ↗
16. Bhatt A, Anbarasu A (2019) Rapid and economic synthesis of bone like apatite using simulated body fluid (SBF). Mater Res Innov 23:149–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14328917.2017.140420310.1080/14328917.2017.1404203 ↗
17. Ruksudjarit A, Pengpat K, Rujijanagul G, Tunkasiri T (2008) Synthesis and characterization of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite from natural bovine bone. Curr Appl Phys 8:270–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cap.2007.10.07610.1016/j.cap.2007.10.076 ↗
18. Fiume E, Tulyaganov D, Ubertalli G et al (2020) Dolomite-foamed bioactive silicate scaffolds for bone tissue repair. Materials (Basel) 13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1303062810.3390/ma13030628 ↗
19. Evis Z, Webster TJ (2011) Nanosize hydroxyapatite: doping with various ions. Adv Appl Ceram 110:311–320. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743676110Y.000000000510.1179/1743676110Y.0000000005 ↗
20. Faure J, Drevet R, Lemelle A et al (2015) A new sol–gel synthesis of 45S5 bioactive glass using an organic acid as catalyst. Mater Sci Eng C 47:407–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.11.04510.1016/j.msec.2014.11.045 ↗
21. Niu W, Chen M, Guo Y et al (2021) A multifunctional bioactive glass-ceramic nanodrug for post-surgical infection/cancer therapy-tissue regeneration. ACS Nano 15:14323–14337. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c0321410.1021/acsnano.1c03214 ↗
22. Rial R, González-Durruthy M, Liu Z, Ruso JM (2021) Advanced materials based on nanosized hydroxyapatite. Molecules 26:3190. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules2611319010.3390/molecules26113190 ↗
23. Kumar R, Mohanty S (2022) Hydroxyapatite: a versatile bioceramic for tissue engineering application. J Inorg Organomet Polym Mater. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-022-02454-210.1007/s10904-022-02454-2 ↗
24. Mohamad Yunos D, Bretcanu O, Boccaccini AR (2008) Polymer-bioceramic composites for tissue engineering scaffolds. J Mater Sci 43:4433–4442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-008-2552-y10.1007/s10853-008-2552-y ↗
25. Adhikari J, Perwez MS, Das A, Saha P (2021) Development of hydroxyapatite reinforced alginate–chitosan based printable biomaterial-ink. Nano Struct Nano Object 25:100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoso.2020.10063010.1016/j.nanoso.2020.100630 ↗
26. Wang W, Zhang B, Li M et al (2021) 3D printing of PLA/n-HA composite scaffolds with customized mechanical properties and biological functions for bone tissue engineering. Compos Part B Eng 224:109192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10919210.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109192 ↗
27. Jodati H, Yılmaz B, Evis Z (2020) A review of bioceramic porous scaffolds for hard tissue applications: effects of structural features. Ceram Int 46:15725–15739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.03.19210.1016/j.ceramint.2020.03.192 ↗
28. Shekhawat D, Singh A, Banerjee MK et al (2021) Bioceramic composites for orthopaedic applications: a comprehensive review of mechanical, biological, and microstructural properties. Ceram Int 47:3013–3030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.09.21410.1016/j.ceramint.2020.09.214 ↗
29. Baino F, Fiume E (2019) Elastic mechanical properties of 45S5-based bioactive glass-ceramic scaffolds. Materials (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1219324410.3390/ma12193244 ↗
30. Vallet-Regí M (2019) Bioceramics: from bone substitutes to nanoparticles for drug delivery. Pure Appl Chem 91:687–706. https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2018-050510.1515/pac-2018-0505 ↗
31. Dorozhkin SV (2018) Current state of bioceramics. J Ceram Sci Technol 9:353–370. https://doi.org/10.4416/JCST2018-0002610.4416/JCST2018-00026 ↗
32. Punj S, Singh J, Singh K (2021) Ceramic biomaterials: properties, state of the art and future prospectives. Ceram Int 47:28059–28074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.06.23810.1016/j.ceramint.2021.06.238 ↗
33. Durgalakshmi D, Balakumar S, Raja CA et al (2015) Structural, morphological and antibacterial investigation of Ag-impregnated sol-gel-derived 45S5 nanoBioglass systems. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 15:4285–4295. https://doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2015.972410.1166/jnn.2015.9724 ↗
34. Balasubramanian S, Gurumurthy B, Balasubramanian A (2017) Biomedical applications of ceramics nanomaterials: a review. Int J Pharm Sci Res 8:4950–4959. https://doi.org/10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.8(12).4950-5910.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.8(12).4950-59 ↗
35. Jordan DR, Mawn LA, Brownstein S et al (2000) The bioceramic orbital implant: a new generation of porous implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 16:347–355. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002341-200009000-0000810.1097/00002341-200009000-00008 ↗
36. Thomas S, Harshita BSP, Mishra P, Talegaonkar S (2015) Ceramic nanoparticles: fabrication methods and applications in drug delivery. Curr Pharm Des 21:6165–6188. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161282166615102715324610.2174/1381612821666151027153246 ↗
37. Karthiga P, Ponnanikajamideen M, Samuel Rajendran R et al (2019) Characterization and toxicology evaluation of zirconium oxide nanoparticles on the embryonic development of zebrafish, danio rerio. Drug Chem Toxicol 42:104–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01480545.2018.152318610.1080/01480545.2018.1523186 ↗
38. Colombo M, Cavallo M, Miegge M et al (2017) Color stability of CAD/CAM Zirconia ceramics following exposure to acidic and staining drinks. J Clin Exp Dent 9:e1297–e1303. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.5440410.4317/jced.54404 ↗
39. Alnassar TM (2022) Color stability of monolithic zirconia in various staining liquids: an in vitro study. Appl Sci 12:9752. https://doi.org/10.3390/app1219975210.3390/app12199752 ↗
40. Alvarado A (2018) Clinical approach in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. In: Garbuzenko DV (ed) Current issues in the diagnostics and treatment of acute appendicitis. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.7553010.5772/intechopen.75530 ↗
41. Chan MH, Liu RS, Hsiao M (2019) Graphitic carbon nitride-based nanocomposites and their biological applications: a review. Nanoscale 11:14993–15003. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9nr04568f10.1039/c9nr04568f ↗
42. Heimann RB (2021) Silicon nitride, a close to ideal ceramic material for medical application. Ceramics 4:208–223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ceramics402001610.3390/ceramics4020016 ↗
43. Dejob L, Toury B, Tadier S et al (2021) Electrospinning of in situ synthesized silica-based and calcium phosphate bioceramics for applications in bone tissue engineering: a review. Acta Biomater 123:123–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.12.03210.1016/j.actbio.2020.12.032 ↗
44. Malavasi G, Pedone A (2022) The effect of the incorporation of catalase mimetic activity cations on the structural, thermal and chemical durability properties of the 45s5 bioglass®. Acta Mater 229:117801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2022.11780110.1016/j.actamat.2022.117801 ↗
45. Ruiz-Aguilar C, Aguilar-Reyes EA, Flores-Martínez M et al (2017) Synthesis and characterisation of β-TCP/bioglass/zirconia scaffolds. Adv Appl Ceram 116:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/17436753.2017.135604310.1080/17436753.2017.1356043 ↗
46. Mazzoni E, Iaquinta MR, Lanzillotti C et al (2021) Bioactive materials for soft tissue repair. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 9:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.61378710.3389/fbioe.2021.613787 ↗
47. Ben-Arfa BAE, Miranda Salvado IM, Ferreira JMF, Pullar RC (2017) A hundred times faster: novel, rapid sol-gel synthesis of bio-glass nanopowders (Si–Na–Ca–P system, Ca: P=1.67) without aging. Int J Appl Glas Sci 8:337–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijag.1225510.1111/ijag.12255 ↗
48. Hench LL, Thompson I (2010) Twenty-first century challenges for biomaterials. J R Soc Interf 7:S379–S391. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0151.focus10.1098/rsif.2010.0151.focus ↗
49. Bento R, Gaddam A, Ferreira JMF (2021) Sol-gel synthesis and characterization of a quaternary bioglass for bone regeneration and tissue engineering. Materials (Basel) 14:4515. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1416451510.3390/ma14164515 ↗
50. Kim YB, Lim JY, Yang GH et al (2019) 3D-printed PCL/bioglass (BGS-7) composite scaffolds with high toughness and cell-responses for bone tissue regeneration. J Ind Eng Chem 79:163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2019.06.02710.1016/j.jiec.2019.06.027 ↗
51. Miculescu F, Maidaniuc A, Voicu SI et al (2017) Progress in hydroxyapatite-starch based sustainable biomaterials for biomedical bone substitution applications. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5:8491–8512. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b0231410.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02314 ↗
52. Ismail SA, Abdullah HZ (2020) Extraction and characterization of natural hydroxyapatite from goat bone for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Forum 1010:573–578. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1010.57310.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1010.573 ↗
53. Backes EH, Fernandes EM, Diogo GS et al (2021) Engineering 3D printed bioactive composite scaffolds based on the combination of aliphatic polyester and calcium phosphates for bone tissue regeneration. Mater Sci Eng C. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2021.11192810.1016/j.msec.2021.111928 ↗
54. Ramesh N, Moratti SC, Dias GJ (2018) Hydroxyapatite–polymer biocomposites for bone regeneration: a review of current trends. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 106:2046–2057. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.3395010.1002/jbm.b.33950 ↗
55. Nedaipour F, Bagheri H, Mohammadi S (2020) “Polylactic acid-polyethylene glycol-hydroxyapatite composite” an efficient composition for interference screws. Nanocomposites 6:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/20550324.2020.179468810.1080/20550324.2020.1794688 ↗
56. Marew T, Birhanu G (2021) Three dimensional printed nanostructure biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Regen Ther 18:102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reth.2021.05.00110.1016/j.reth.2021.05.001 ↗
57. Aldhuwayhi SD, Sajjad A, Bakar WZW et al (2021) Evaluation of fracture toughness, color stability, and sorption solubility of a fabricated novel glass ionomer nano zirconia-silica-hydroxyapatite hybrid composite material. Int J Polym Sci 2021:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/662671210.1155/2021/6626712 ↗
58. Thomas MV, Puleo DA (2009) Calcium sulfate: properties and clinical applications. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 88:597–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.3126910.1002/jbm.b.31269 ↗
59. Orsini G, Ricci J, Scarano A et al (2004) Bone-defect healing with calcium-sulfate particles and cement: an experimental study in rabbit. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 68:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.2001210.1002/jbm.b.20012 ↗
60. Ene R, Nica M, Ene D et al (2021) Review of calcium-sulphate-based ceramics and synthetic bone substitutes used for antibiotic delivery in pji and osteomyelitis treatment. EFORT Open Rev 6:297–304. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.20008310.1302/2058-5241.6.200083 ↗
61. Fiume E, Magnaterra G, Rahdar A et al (2021) Hydroxyapatite for biomedical applications: a short overview. Ceramics 4:542–563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ceramics404003910.3390/ceramics4040039 ↗
62. Sasikumar S, Ravy L (2015) Influence of needle-like morphology on the bioactivity of nanocrystalline wollastonite and ndash; an in vitro study. Int J Nanomed 129:129. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S7998610.2147/IJN.S79986 ↗
63. Sunil BR, Jagannatham M (2016) Producing hydroxyapatite from fish bones by heat treatment. Mater Lett 185:411–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2016.09.03910.1016/j.matlet.2016.09.039 ↗
64. Sprio S, Dapporto M, Preti L et al (2020) Enhancement of the biological and mechanical performances of sintered hydroxyapatite by multiple ions doping. Front Mater 7:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2020.0022410.3389/fmats.2020.00224 ↗
65. He LH, Standard OC, Huang TTY et al (2008) Mechanical behaviour of porous hydroxyapatite. Acta Biomater 4:577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2007.11.00210.1016/j.actbio.2007.11.002 ↗
66. Kannan S, Ferreira JMF (2006) Synthesis and thermal stability of hydroxyapatite-β-tricalcium phosphate composites with cosubstituted sodium, magnesium, and fluorine. Chem Mater 18:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1021/cm051966i10.1021/cm051966i ↗
67. Noshirvani N, Hong W, Ghanbarzadeh B et al (2018) Study of cellulose nanocrystal doped starch-polyvinyl alcohol bionanocomposite films. Int J Biol Macromol 107:2065–2074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.10.08310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.10.083 ↗
68. Barabashko M, Ponomarev A, Rezvanova A et al (2022) Young’s modulus and vickers hardness of the hydroxyapatite bioceramics with a small amount of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Materials (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1515530410.3390/ma15155304 ↗
69. Zheng K, Solodovnyk A, Li W et al (2015) Aging time and temperature effects on the structure and bioactivity of gel-derived 45S5 glass-ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 98:30–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.1325810.1111/jace.13258 ↗
70. Ma J, Chen CZ, Wang DG, Hu JH (2011) Synthesis, characterization and in vitro bioactivity of magnesium-doped sol-gel glass and glass-ceramics. Ceram Int 37:1637–1644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2011.01.04310.1016/j.ceramint.2011.01.043 ↗
71. Ballouze R, Marahat MH, Mohamad S et al (2021) Biocompatible magnesium-doped biphasic calcium phosphate for bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 109:1426–1435. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.3480210.1002/jbm.b.34802 ↗
72. Rezabeigi E, Wood-Adams PM, Drew RAL (2014) Synthesis of 45S5 Bioglass® via a straightforward organic, nitrate-free sol-gel process. Mater Sci Eng C 40:248–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.03.04210.1016/j.msec.2014.03.042 ↗
73. Karamian E, Abdellahi M, Khandan A, Abdellah S (2016) Introducing the fluorine doped natural hydroxyapatite-titania nanobiocomposite ceramic. J Alloys Compd 679:375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.04.06810.1016/j.jallcom.2016.04.068 ↗
74. Mohd Pu’adAbdul HaqMohd Noh NASRHH et al (2019) Synthesis method of hydroxyapatite: a review. Mater Today Proc 29:233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.53610.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.536 ↗
75. Sheikh Z, Abdallah MN, Hanafi AA et al (2015) Mechanisms of in vivo degradation and resorption of calcium phosphate based biomaterials. Materials (Basel) 8:7913–7925. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma811543010.3390/ma8115430 ↗
76. Dias AG, Gibson IR, Santos JD, Lopes MA (2007) Physicochemical degradation studies of calcium phosphate glass ceramic in the CaO-P2O5-MgO-TiO2 system. Acta Biomater 3:263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2006.09.00910.1016/j.actbio.2006.09.009 ↗
77. Barrère F, Ni M, Habibovic P et al (2008) Degradation of bioceramics. Tissue engineering. Elsevier, NY, pp 223–25410.1016/B978-0-12-370869-4.00008-2 ↗
78. Thomas NG, Manoharan A, Anbarasu A (2021) Preclinical evaluation of sol-gel synthesized modulated 45S5-bioglass based biodegradable bone graft intended for alveolar bone regeneration. J Hard Tissue Biol 30:303–308. https://doi.org/10.2485/jhtb.30.30310.2485/jhtb.30.303 ↗
79. Bingel L, Groh D, Karpukhina N, Brauer DS (2015) Influence of dissolution medium pH on ion release and apatite formation of Bioglass® 45S5. Mater Lett 143:279–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2014.12.12410.1016/j.matlet.2014.12.124 ↗
80. Sepulveda P, Jones JR, Hench LL (2002) In vitro dissolution of melt-derived 45S5 and sol-gel derived 58S bioactive glasses. J Biomed Mater Res 61:301–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.1020710.1002/jbm.10207 ↗
81. Kartsogiannis V, Ng KW (2004) Cell lines and primary cell cultures in the study of bone cell biology. Mol Cell Endocrinol 228:79–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2003.06.00210.1016/j.mce.2003.06.002 ↗
82. Raynaud S, Champion E, Lafon J, Bernache-Assollant D (2002) Calcium phosphate apatites with variable Ca/P atomic ratio III. Mechanical properties and degradation in solution of hot pressed ceramics. Biomaterials 23:1081–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00220-410.1016/S0142-9612(01)00220-4 ↗
83. Sathiyavimal S, Vasantharaj S, LewisOscar F et al (2020) Natural organic and inorganic–hydroxyapatite biopolymer composite for biomedical applications. Prog Org Coat 147:105858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.10585810.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.105858 ↗
84. Lasprilla AJR, Martinez AGR, Lunelli BH et al (2011) Synthesis and characterization of poly (lactic acid) for use in biomedical field. Chem Eng Trans 24:985–990. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET112416510.3303/CET1124165 ↗
85. Veeman D, Sai MS, Sureshkumar P et al (2021) Additive manufacturing of biopolymers for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: an overview, potential applications, advancements, and trends. Int J Polym Sci. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/490702710.1155/2021/4907027 ↗
86. Wei S, Ma JX, Xu L et al (2020) Biodegradable materials for bone defect repair. Mil Med Res 7:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-020-00280-610.1186/s40779-020-00280-6 ↗
87. Kawakami T, Antoh M, Hasegawa H et al (1992) Experimental study on osteoconductive properties of a chitosan-bonded hydroxyapatite self-hardening paste. Biomaterials 13:759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(92)90014-F10.1016/0142-9612(92)90014-F ↗
88. Anjaneyulu U, Swaroop VK, Vijayalakshmi U (2016) Preparation and characterization of novel Ag doped hydroxyapatite-Fe3O4-chitosan hybrid composites and in vitro biological evaluations for orthopaedic applications. RSC Adv 6:10997–11007. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra21479c10.1039/c5ra21479c ↗
89. Maji K, Dasgupta S, Kundu B, Bissoyi A (2015) Development of gelatin-chitosan-hydroxyapatite based bioactive bone scaffold with controlled pore size and mechanical strength. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 26:1190–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2015.108280910.1080/09205063.2015.1082809 ↗
90. Vozzi G, Corallo C, Carta S et al (2014) Collagen-gelatin-genipin-hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds colonized by human primary osteoblasts are suitable for bone tissue engineering applications: in vitro evidences. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 102:1415–1421. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.3482310.1002/jbm.a.34823 ↗
91. Ding H, Xiong HM (2015) Exploring the blue luminescence origin of nitrogen-doped carbon dots by controlling the water amount in synthesis. RSC Adv 5:66528–66533. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra11796h10.1039/c5ra11796h ↗
92. Shi H, Zhou Z, Li W et al (2021) Hydroxyapatite based materials for bone tissue engineering: a brief and comprehensive introduction. Crystals 11:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst1102014910.3390/cryst11020149 ↗
93. Henriques Lourenço A, Neves N, Ribeiro-Machado C et al (2017) Injectable hybrid system for strontium local delivery promotes bone regeneration in a rat critical-sized defect model. Sci Rep 7:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04866-410.1038/s41598-017-04866-4 ↗
94. Mahmoud EM, Sayed M, El-Kady AM et al (2020) In vitro and in vivo study of naturally derived alginate/hydroxyapatite bio composite scaffolds. Int J Biol Macromol 165:1346–1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.10.01410.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.10.014 ↗
95. Ishikawa Y, Komotori J, Senna M (2012) Properties of hydroxyapatite hyaluronic acid nano-composite sol and its interaction with natural bones and collagen fibers. Curr Nanosci 2:191–196. https://doi.org/10.2174/157341371060203019110.2174/1573413710602030191 ↗
96. Esposito Corcione C, Gervaso F, Scalera F et al (2019) Highly loaded hydroxyapatite microsphere/ PLA porous scaffolds obtained by fused deposition modelling. Ceram Int 45:2803–2810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.07.29710.1016/j.ceramint.2018.07.297 ↗
97. Zhang H, Fu Q-W, Sun T-W et al (2015) Amorphous calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite and poly( d, l -lactic acid) composite nanofibers: electrospinning preparation, mineralization and in vivo bone defect repair. Coll Surf B Biointerfaces 136:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.08.01510.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.08.015 ↗
98. Carfì Pavia F, Conoscenti G, Greco S et al (2018) Preparation, characterization and in vitro test of composites poly-lactic acid/hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 119:945–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.08.00710.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.08.007 ↗
99. Shikinami Y, Okuno M (2001) Bioresorbable devices made of forged composites of hydroxyapatite (HA) particles and poly L-lactide (PLLA). Part II: Practical properties of miniscrews and miniplates. Biomaterials 22:3197–3211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00072-210.1016/S0142-9612(01)00072-2 ↗
100. Wan Y, Wu C, Xiong G et al (2015) Mechanical properties and cytotoxicity of nanoplate-like hydroxyapatite/polylactide nanocomposites prepared by intercalation technique. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 47:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.03.00910.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.03.009 ↗