4.2 Review

Carbon-based electrically conductive materials for bone repair and regeneration

Journal

MATERIALS ADVANCES
Volume 3, Issue 13, Pages 5186-5206

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2ma00001f

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Electrically conductive polymers and carbon-based materials have great potential as biomaterials in bone tissue engineering. This review discusses the in vitro and in vivo performances of carbon-based conductive materials and their applications as scaffolds for bone tissue engineering, as well as summarizes the cellular processing mechanisms of these materials.
Electrically conductive polymers and carbon-based materials are emerging as promising biomaterials for applications in bone tissue engineering solutions. Carbon-based conductive materials may be more suitable alternatives due to their ability to adsorb proteins, act as load-bearing materials, and accelerate bone regeneration and maturation through exogenous electrical stimulation. Furthermore, incorporating carbon-based conductive materials into bone tissue engineering scaffolds better mimics the natural structural and electrically conductive properties of the native bone. This review discusses the in vitro and in vivo performances of one-dimensional and two-dimensional carbon-based conductive materials and their applications as three-dimensional scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Cellular processing mechanisms of carbon-based conductive materials are summarized to understand better the cellular uptake, degradation, and excretion of these conductive materials if they were to be delivered to the human body to treat bone defects. Both in vitro and in vivo models are discussed to provide insight into the role played by the carbon-based electrically conductive bone scaffold, which may lead to clinical translation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available