Next Article in Journal
Advancements in Biomedical Applications of Calcium Phosphate Glass and Glass-Based Devices—A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Correction: Omori et al. Sinus Mucosal Damage Triggered by Synthetic or Xenogeneic Bone Substitutes: A Histological Analysis in Rabbits. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 257
Previous Article in Journal
Precision Engineering of Chondrocyte Microenvironments: Investigating the Optimal Reaction Conditions for Type B Gelatin Methacrylate Hydrogel Matrix for TC28a2 Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estrogen Deficiency Impairs Osseointegration in Hypertensive Rats Even Treated with Alendronate Coated on the Implant Surface
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Bone Regeneration and Repair Materials

by
Marcio Mateus Beloti
and
Adalberto Luiz Rosa
*
Bone Research Lab, Ribeiraão Preto School of Dentistry, University of Saão Paulo, Ribeiraão Preto 14040-904, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Funct. Biomater. 2024, 15(3), 78; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb15030078
Submission received: 11 March 2024 / Revised: 18 March 2024 / Accepted: 19 March 2024 / Published: 21 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bone Regeneration and Repair Materials)

1. Introduction

Bone tissue has a remarkable ability to regenerate following injury and trauma [1,2,3]. However, the extent of bone loss or the presence of concurrent diseases can often surpass the regenerative ability, leading to the failure of conventional procedures and, consequently, the need for additional treatments [4,5]. In the field of bone repair, regenerative medicine encompasses all currently available treatments, including biological and material approaches and their combination, which are being evaluated by researchers and clinicians [6,7,8]. This Special Issue, entitled “Bone Regeneration and Repair Materials”, is composed of 14 original and 2 review articles that can be grouped into the following three categories: (1) physicochemical and mechanical characterizations of biomaterials for bone regeneration and implants, (2) strategies to induce bone repair using biomaterials and/or cells and (3) titanium (Ti) implants. We believe that this collection of information is of great interest to researchers and clinicians dealing with bone tissue and offers new insights into the interactions between bones and materials. We are appreciative to the Journal of Functional Biomaterials team for inviting us to Guest Edit this Special Issue and to the authors from eight countries who helped us build this impressive collection of scientific knowledge.

2. Overview of Published Articles

One of the main challenges in developing biomaterials as substitutes for bone tissue is the emulation of the physicochemical and mechanical properties of bones. Using nacre from mollusk shells with layered structures as a natural model for bio-inspired materials, Trabizian et al. (contribution 1) fabricated nacre-like composites of hydroxyapatite (HA) and polymers using a bidirectional freeze-casting technique. The mechanical characterization of the composites indicated that increasing the HA fraction enhanced the mineral bridge density, resulting in composites with higher flexural and compressive strengths, making them potential candidates for use in orthopedics, such as spinal fusion and bone fracture fixation implants. Based on the use of goose bone as a traditional medicine in Malay culture, Abdul Rahman et al. (contribution 2) described a method for preparing goose bone ash via bone calcination. They observed that sintering bones at 900 °C generated HA in the mineralogical phase with a calcium/phosphate atomic ratio of 1.64, which is very close to the ideal stoichiometric ratio of 1.67, creating possibilities for further investigations into therapeutic approaches using goose bone ash to repair bone tissue. Marine sponges have highly porous bodies and inorganic (biosilica) and collagen-like (spongin) organic contents, making them potential structures for use as natural scaffolds in bone tissue engineering [9]. Santos et al. (contribution 3) demonstrated that scaffolds produced from two species of marine sponges, despite exhibiting similar chemical compositions and porosities, presented distinct osteogenic potential when implanted in noncritical bone defects created in rat tibiae, with the scaffold with a higher degradation rate inducing more bone formation. As mentioned by the authors, the development of sustainable mariculture techniques is crucial for the generation of large-scale biomaterials derived from marine sponges for clinical therapeutic applications. With a focus on materials for bone tissue engineering, synthetic polymers with adequate printability and mechanical properties have been employed to fabricate scaffolds using several printing processing methods [10]. Gao et al. (contribution 4) applied digital light processing printing technology to fabricate a scaffold in which the addition of gelatin methacrylate enhanced the osteoblast differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from rabbit bone marrow and increased bone formation in bone defects created in rabbit femurs. Among the biomaterials with potential to substitute bone tissue, 45S5 Bioglass® is of great relevance as a synthetic glass that was found to chemically bond to bone [11,12]. Considering the repair of demanding bone defects such as the ones in osteoporotic bones, Araújo et al. (contribution 5) incorporated teriparatide, a recombinant fragment of the human parathyroid hormone, into 45S5 Bioglass® and observed a promising result in terms of the bone repair of critical size defects created in ovariectomized rat calvariae. The association between biomaterials and cells is a smart approach that has been extensively investigated in bone tissue engineering [13,14]. For the first time, Adolpho et al. (contribution 6) combined photobiomodulation therapy, which is known to enhance bone repair, with a ceramic/polymer scaffold and MSCs and demonstrated that the association of these three tools increased the bone formation in rat calvarial defects, highlighting the need for innovative approaches and the combination of different techniques to regenerate large bone defects. Another potential therapeutical application of stem cells is in the prevention of the progressive degeneration of cartilage and subchondral bone triggered by temporomandibular disorders, a subject deeply explored in a bibliometric study performed by da Silva et al. (contribution 7). Oral health is directly linked to the integrity of mineralized tissues of the stomatognathic system, including bone, enamel and dentin, and biomaterials may contribute to the preservation of these tissues [15,16]. Dotta et al. (contribution 8) synthesized strontium-containing nanoparticles that formed a mineral layer and penetrated dentin tubules, which resisted an acidic environment and induced mineral deposition by human dental pulp stem cells. These nanoparticles combine the abrasive properties of calcium carbonate with the ability of strontium to induce mineralization and can be added to dentifrice formulations to treat dentin hypersensitivity. In the dental setting, implant placement in the posterior region of the maxilla often requires prior procedures, and sinus floor elevation is the most common surgical approach for oral implant-based rehabilitation [17]. Miyauchi et al. (contribution 9) used a rabbit model to compare the healing pattern after sinus floor lifting with either non-collagenated bovine or collagenated porcine xenografts, and they observed that despite both materials allowing bone formation, the collagenated xenograft underwent higher resorption, resulting in a greater amount of new bone. Despite the benefits of sinus floor elevation, Omori et al. (contribution 10) used a rabbit model to demonstrate that contact with grafts induced the thinning and possible perforation of the sinus mucosa, which have implications for clinical outcomes and need to be further investigated. Ti is a powerful tool for promoting oral rehabilitation because of its ability to osseointegrate, which might be affected by both bone quality and quantity and implant surface features [18,19]. Santiago et al. (contribution 11) developed and characterized a fluorapatite coating prepared using a hydrothermal method and deposited it on commercial Ti implants. In a rabbit tibia model, this surface promoted more bone formation, with increased bone-to-implant contact, compared to HA-coated implants, making fluorapatite coatings an interesting approach for the enhancement of implant osseointegration under challenging clinical conditions. Systemic diseases such as osteoporosis and hypertension may disrupt the process of Ti osseointegration [20,21]. Indeed, Mulinari-Santos et al. (contribution 12) worked with spontaneously hypertensive rats under antihypertensive therapy and showed that osteoporotic conditions induced by estrogen deficiency impaired Ti osseointegration, even when the implant surface was coated with an antiresorptive agent used to treat osteoporosis. Angiogenesis–osteogenesis coupling is crucial for Ti osseointegration, and obesity may disturb this circuit, disrupting bone–implant interactions [22]. Pinto et al. (contribution 13) established an in vitro experimental model of high adipogenesis and demonstrated that the proinflammatory environment created by obesity interferes with endothelial cell responses to a Ti-enriched medium, which could explain the high implant failure ratio in the obese population. To better understand bone response to Ti implants, it is important to investigate the cell signaling pathways involved in osseointegration [23,24]. Teixeira et al. (contribution 14) used a conditioned medium approach to show that a laser-modified Ti surface enhanced the osteoblast differentiation of MSCs by downregulating the Wnt signaling inhibitor, Dickkopf 1. Souza et al. (contribution 15) stated that the high osteogenic potential of a nanostructured Ti surface generated by chemical conditioning with H2SO4/H2O2 may be related to its capacity to regulate the Hedgehog and Notch signaling pathways, and that the activation of Hedgehog and the inhibition of Notch might synergistically affect osteoblast differentiation, especially in cells grown on nanotopography. Although Ti, ceramics, glasses, and polymers are the most commonly studied and used bone substitutes and implants, alternative materials have been investigated such as wood, which is a sustainable and renewable source suitable for the production of biomaterials using more environmentally friendly processes, a topic that is explored in a review prepared by Nefjodovs et al. (contribution 16).

3. Conclusions

This Special Issue demonstrates that a diverse range of materials and approaches have emerged as promising and powerful tools in regenerative medicine to promote bone repair, regeneration, and implant osseointegration. Additionally, this collection of studies sheds light on the need to understand the cellular mechanisms involved in the interactions between bones and materials in the search for optimized and smart therapies. We know that there is a long way to go before most of the strategies presented here can be implemented in clinical practice. Furthermore, we believe that the efforts of scientists and clinicians in both basic and translational fields will accelerate this ride and uncover innovative therapies to treat damaged bone tissue in a plethora of clinical situations, always seeking optimal patient well-being.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.B. and A.L.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.B. and A.L.R.; writing—review and editing, M.M.B. and A.L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP; grant: 2017/12622-7) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq; grants: 305033/2022-0 and 307698/2021-1).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

List of Contributors

  • Tabrizian, P.; Sun, H.; Jargalsaikhan, U.; Sui, T.; Davis, S.; Su, B. Biomimetic Nacre-like Hydroxyapatite/Polymer Composites for Bone Implants. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14080393
  • Abdul Rahman, F.S.; Abdullah, A.M.; Radhi, A.; Shahidan, W.N.S.; Abdullah, J.Y. Physicochemical Characterization of Thermally Processed Goose Bone Ash for Bone Regeneration. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14070351
  • Santos, C.P.G.; Prado, J.P.S.; Fernandes, K.R.; Kido, H.W.; Dorileo, B.P.; Parisi, J.R.; Silva, J.A.; Cruz, M.A.; Custódio, M.R.; Rennó, A.C.M.; et al. Different Species of Marine Sponges Diverge in Osteogenic Potential When Therapeutically Applied as Natural Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration in Rats. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14030122
  • Gao, J.; Li, M.; Cheng, J.; Liu, X.; Liu, Z.; Liu, J.; Tang, P. 3D-Printed GelMA/PEGDA/F127DA Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020096
  • de Araújo, J.C.R.; Sobral Silva, L.A.; de Barros Lima, V.A.; Bastos Campos, T.M.; Lisboa Filho, P.N.; Okamoto, R.; de Vasconcellos, L.M.R. The Local Release of Teriparatide Incorporated in 45S5 Bioglass Promotes a Beneficial Effect on Osteogenic Cells and Bone Repair in Calvarial Defects in Ovariectomized Rats. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020093
  • Adolpho, L.F.; Ribeiro, L.M.S.; Freitas, G.P.; Lopes, H.B.; Gomes, M.P.O.; Ferraz, E.P.; Gimenes, R.; Beloti, M.M.; Rosa, A.L. Mesenchymal Stem Cells Combined with a P(VDF-TrFE)/BaTiO3 Scaffold and Photobiomodulation Therapy Enhance Bone Repair in Rat Calvarial Defects. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 306. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14060306
  • da Silva, Z.A.; Melo, W.W.P.; Ferreira, H.H.N.; Lima, R.R.; Souza-Rodrigues, R.D. Global Trends and Future Research Directions for Temporomandibular Disorders and Stem Cells. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020103
  • Dotta, T.C.; Hayann, L.; de Padua Andrade Almeida, L.; Nogueira, L.F.B.; Arnez, M.M.; Castelo, R.; Cassiano, A.F.B.; Faria, G.; Martelli-Tosi, M.; Bottini, M.; et al. Strontium Carbonate and Strontium-Substituted Calcium Carbonate Nanoparticles Form Protective Deposits on Dentin Surface and Enhance Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells Mineralization. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 250. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13040250
  • Miyauchi, Y.; Izutani, T.; Teranishi, Y.; Iida, T.; Nakajima, Y.; Xavier, S.P.; Baba, S. Healing Patterns of Non-Collagenated Bovine and Collagenated Porcine Xenografts Used for Sinus Floor Elevation: A Histological Study in Rabbits. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13040276
  • Omori, Y.; Botticelli, D.; Migani, S.; Ferreira Balan, V.; Pires Godoy, E.; Xavier, S.P. Sinus Mucosal Damage Triggered by Synthetic or Xenogeneic Bone Substitutes: A Histological Analysis in Rabbits. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 257. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13040257
  • Santiago, E.; Martin, V.; Colaço, B.; Fernandes, M.H.; Santos, C.; Gomes, P.S. Hydrothermal Synthesis of Fluorapatite Coatings over Titanium Implants for Enhanced Osseointegration—An In Vivo Study in the Rabbit. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 241. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13040241
  • Mulinari-Santos, G.; dos Santos, J.S.; Kitagawa, I.L.; de Souza Batista, F.R.; Botacin, P.R.; Antoniali, C.; Lisboa-Filho, P.N.; Okamoto, R. Estrogen Deficiency Impairs Osseointegration in Hypertensive Rats Even Treated with Alendronate Coated on the Implant Surface. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 471. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14090471
  • Pinto, T.S.; Gomes, A.M.; de Morais, P.B.; Zambuzzi, W.F. Adipogenesis-Related Metabolic Condition Affects Shear-Stressed Endothelial Cells Activity Responding to Titanium. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14030162
  • Teixeira, J.F.L.; de Souza, J.A.C.; Magalhães, F.A.C.; de Oliveira, G.J.P.L.; de Santis, J.B.; de Souza Costa, C.A.; de Souza, P.P.C. Laser-Modified Ti Surface Improves Paracrine Osteogenesis by Modulating the Expression of DKK1 in Osteoblasts. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14040224
  • Souza, P.G.; Adolpho, L.F.; Lopes, H.B.; Weffort, D.; Souza, A.T.P.; Oliveira, F.S.; Rosa, A.L.; Beloti, M.M. Effects of Modulation of the Hedgehog and Notch Signaling Pathways on Osteoblast Differentiation Induced by Titanium with Nanotopography. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020079
  • Nefjodovs, V.; Andze, L.; Andzs, M.; Filipova, I.; Tupciauskas, R.; Vecbiskena, L.; Kapickis, M. Wood as Possible Renewable Material for Bone Implants—Literature Review. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14050266

References

  1. Schelling, S.H. Secondary (Classical) Bone Healing. Semin. Vet. Med. Surg. Small Anim. 1991, 6, 16. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Tseng, S.S.; Lee, M.A.; Reddi, A.H. Nonunions and the Potential of Stem Cells in Fracture-Healing. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2008, 90 (Suppl. 1), 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bosch-Rué, È.; Díez-Tercero, L.; Buitrago, J.O.; Castro, E.; Pérez, R.A. Angiogenic and Immunomodulation Role of Ions for Initial Stages of Bone Tissue Regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2023, 166, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ring, D.; Jupiter, J.B.; Sanders, R. A, Quintero, J.; Santoro, V.M.; Ganz, R.; Marti R.K. Complex Nonunion of Fractures of the Femoral Shaft Treated by Wave-Plate Osteosynthesis. J. Bone Joint. Surg. Br. 1997, 79, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Seebach, C.; Nau, C.; Henrich, D.; Verboket, R.; Bellen, M.; Frischknecht, N.; Moeck, V.; Eichler, K.; Horlohé, K.H.S.; Hoffmann, R.; et al. Cell-Based Therapy by Autologous Bone Marrow-Derived Mononuclear Cells for Bone Augmentation of Plate-Stabilized Proximal Humeral Fractures: A Multicentric, Randomized, Open Phase IIa study. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2024, 13, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Arnold, A.M.; Holt, B.D.; Daneshmandi, L.; Laurencin, C.T.; Sydlik, S.A. Phosphate Graphene as an Intrinsically Osteoinductive Scaffold for Stem Cell-Driven Bone Regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 4855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Freitas, G.P.; Lopes, H.B.; Souza, A.T.P.; Gomes, M.P.O.; Quiles, G.K.; Gordon, J.; Tye, C.; Stein, J.L.; Stein, G.S.; Lian, J.B.; et al. Mesenchymal Stem Cells Overexpressing BMP-9 by CRISPR-Cas9 Present High In Vitro Osteogenic Potential and Enhance In Vivo Bone Formation. Gene Ther. 2021, 28, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, Y.; Dai, J.; Hang, R.; Yao, X.; Bai, L.; Huang, D.; Hang, R. Impact of Surface Biofunctionalization Strategies on Key Effector Cells Response in Polyacrylamide Hydrogels for Bone Regeneration. Biomater. Adv. 2024, 158, 213768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Martins, E.; Diogo, G.S.; Pires, R.; Reis, R.L.; Silva, T.H. 3D Biocomposites Comprising Marine Collagen and Silica-Based Materials Inspired on the Composition of Marine Sponge Skeletons Envisaging Bone Tissue Regeneration. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tabatabaei, F.; Gelin, A.; Rasoulianboroujeni, M.; Tayebi, L. Coating of 3D Printed PCL/TCP Scaffolds Using Homogenized-Fibrillated Collagen. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2022, 217, 112670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xynos, I.D.; Hukkanen, M.V.; Batten, J.J.; Buttery, L.D.; Hench, L.L.; Polak, J.M. Bioglass 45S5 Stimulates Osteoblast Turnover and Enhances Bone Formation In Vitro: Implications and Applications for Bone Tissue Engineering. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2000, 67, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jones, J.R. Review of Bioactive Glass: From Hench to Hybrids. Acta Biomater. 2013, 9, 4457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Freitas, G.P.; Lopes, H.B.; Almeida, A.L.G.; Abuna, R.P.F.; Gimenes, R.; Souza, L.E.B.; Covas, D.T.; Beloti, M.M.; Rosa, A.L. Potential of Osteoblastic Cells Derived from Bone Marrow and Adipose Tissue Associated with a Polymer/Ceramic Composite to Repair Bone Tissue. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2017, 101, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mazzoni, E.; Iaquinta, M.R.; Mosaico, M.; De Pace, R.; D’Agostino, A.; Tognon, M.; Martini, F. Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Innovative Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications. Tissue Eng. Part. B Rev. 2023, 29, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Degli Esposti, L.; Ionescu, A.C.; Gandolfi, S.; Ilie, N.; Adamiano, A.; Brambilla, E.; Iafisco, M. Natural, Biphasic Calcium Phosphate from Fish Bones for Enamel Remineralization and Dentin Tubules Occlusion. Dent. Mater. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Qian, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Lu, Y.; Bao, S.; Zhu, W.; Chen, Q.; Si, M. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation with Simultaneous Hydrophilic Implants Placement: A Retrospective Study of 2–5 Years. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2024, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Listl, S.; Faggion, C.M., Jr. An Economic Evaluation of Different Sinus Lift Techniques. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2010, 37, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brånemark, P.I.; Hansson, B.O.; Adell, R.; Breine, U.; Lindström, J.; Hallén, O.; Ohman, A. Osseointegrated Implants in the Treatment of the Edentulous Jaw. Experience from a 10-Year Period. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Suppl. 1977, 16, 1. [Google Scholar]
  19. Freitas, G.P.; Lopes, H.B.; Martins-Neto, E.C.; de Oliveira, P.T.; Beloti, M.M.; Rosa, A.L. Effect of Surface Nanotopography on Bone Response to Titanium Implant. J. Oral Implantol. 2016, 42, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wu, X.; Al-Abedalla, K.; Eimar, H.; Arekunnath Madathil, S.; Abi-Nader, S.; Daniel, N.G.; Nicolau, B.; Tamimi, F. Antihypertensive Medications and the Survival Rate of Osseointegrated Dental Implants: A Cohort Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 18, 1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Siverino, C.; Tirkkonen-Rajasalo, L.; Freitag, L.; Günther, C.; Thompson, K.; Styger, U.; Zeiter, S.; Eglin, D.; Stadelmann, V.A. Restoring Implant Fixation Strength in Osteoporotic Bone With a Hydrogel Locally Delivering Zoledronic Acid and Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2. A Longitudinal In Vivo MicroCT Study in Rats. Bone 2024, 180, 117011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rőszer, T.; Józsa, T.; Kiss-Tóth, E.D.; De Clerck, N.; Balogh, L. Leptin Receptor Deficient Diabetic (Db/Db) Mice are Compromised in Postnatal Bone Regeneration. Cell Tissue Res. 2014, 356, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bighetti-Trevisan, R.L.; Almeida, L.O.; Castro-Raucci, L.M.S.; Gordon, J.A.R.; Tye, C.E.; Stein, G.S.; Lian, J.B.; Stein, J.L.; Rosa, A.L.; Beloti, M.M. Titanium with Nanotopography Attenuates the Osteoclast-Induced Disruption of Osteoblast Differentiation by Regulating Histone Methylation. Biomater. Adv. 2022, 134, 112548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shirazi, S.; Ravindran, S.; Cooper, L.F. Topography-Mediated Immunomodulation in Osseointegration; Ally or Enemy. Biomaterials 2022, 291, 121903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Beloti, M.M.; Rosa, A.L. Bone Regeneration and Repair Materials. J. Funct. Biomater. 2024, 15, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb15030078

AMA Style

Beloti MM, Rosa AL. Bone Regeneration and Repair Materials. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2024; 15(3):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb15030078

Chicago/Turabian Style

Beloti, Marcio Mateus, and Adalberto Luiz Rosa. 2024. "Bone Regeneration and Repair Materials" Journal of Functional Biomaterials 15, no. 3: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb15030078

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop