1932

Abstract

Inorganic nanomaterials have witnessed significant advances in areas of medicine including cancer therapy, imaging, and drug delivery, but their use in soft tissue repair and regeneration is in its infancy. Metallic, ceramic, and carbon allotrope nanoparticles have shown promise in facilitating tissue repair and regeneration. Inorganic nanomaterials have been employed to improve stem cell engraftment in cellular therapy, material mechanical stability in tissue repair, electrical conductivity in nerve and cardiac regeneration, adhesion strength in tissue approximation, and antibacterial capacity in wound dressings. These nanomaterials have also been used to improve or replace common surgical materials and restore functionality to damaged tissue. We provide a comprehensive overview of inorganic nanomaterials in tissue repair and regeneration, and discuss their promise and limitations for eventual translation to the clinic.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044457
2018-06-04
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/bioeng/20/1/annurev-bioeng-071516-044457.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044457&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Dennis C, Sethu S, Nayak S, Mohan L, Morsi YY, Manivasagam G 2016. Suture materials—current and emerging trends. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 104:1544–59
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Annabi N, Tamayol A, Shin SR, Ghaemmaghami AM, Peppas NA, Khademhosseini A 2014. Surgical materials: current challenges and nano-enabled solutions. Nano Today 9:574–89
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Fleischer S, Dvir T 2013. Tissue engineering on the nanoscale: lessons from the heart. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24:664–71
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Rittie L 2016. Cellular mechanisms of skin repair in humans and other mammals. J Cell Commun. Signal. 10:103–20
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT 2008. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature 453:314–21
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Akbik D, Ghadiri M, Chrzanowski W, Rohanizadeh R 2014. Curcumin as a wound healing agent. Life Sci 116:1–7
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Hu MS, Maan ZN, Wu JC, Rennert RC, Hong WX et al. 2014. Tissue engineering and regenerative repair in wound healing. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42:1494–507
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Zaja-Milatovic S, Richmond A 2008. CXC chemokines and their receptors: a case for a significant biological role in cutaneous wound healing. Histol. Histopathol. 23:1399–407
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Enoch S, Grey JE, Harding KG 2006. ABC of wound healing—recent advances and emerging treatments. BMJ 332:962–65
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Reinke JM, Sorg H 2012. Wound repair and regeneration. Eur. Surg. Res. 49:35–43
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Armitage J, Lockwood S 2011. Skin incisions and wound closure. Surgery 29:496–501
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Dumville JC, Coulthard P, Worthington HV, Riley P, Patel N et al. 2014. Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 12:CD004287
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Cirocchi R, Randolph JJ, Montedori A, Cochetti GG, Arezzo A et al. 2014. Staples versus sutures for surgical wound closure in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 8:CD011250
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Lloyd JD, Marque MJ 3rd, Kacprowicz RF 2007. Closure techniques. Emerg. Med. Clin. N. Am. 25:73–81
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Bouten PJM, Zonjee M, Bender J, Yauw STK, van Goor H et al. 2014. The chemistry of tissue adhesive materials. Prog. Polym. Sci. 39:1375–405
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Tajirian AL, Goldberg DJ 2010. A review of sutures and other skin closure materials. J. Cosmet. Laser Ther. 12:296–302
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Slade Shantz JA, Vernon J, Morshed S, Leiter J, Stranges G 2013. Sutures versus staples for wound closure in orthopaedic surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Patient Saf. Surg. 7:6
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Krishnan R, MacNeil SD, Malvankar-Mehta MS 2016. Comparing sutures versus staples for skin closure after orthopaedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 6:e009257
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Coolman BR, Ehrhart N, Pijanowski G, Ehrhart EJ, Coolman SL 2000. Comparison of skin staples with sutures for anastomosis of the small intestine in dogs. Vet. Surg. 29:293–302
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Singer AJ, Quinn JV, Hollander JE 2008. The cyanoacrylate topical skin adhesives. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 26:490–96
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Schnuriger B, Barmparas G, Branco BC, Lustenberger T, Inaba K, Demetriades D 2011. Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: a review of the literature. Am. J. Surg. 201:111–21
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Annabi N, Yue K, Tamayol A, Khademhosseini A 2015. Elastic sealants for surgical applications. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 95:27–39
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Tilney NL, Bailey GL, Morgan AP 1973. Sequential system failure after rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms: an unsolved problem in postoperative care. Ann. Surg. 178:117–22
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Diegelmann RF, Evans MC 2004. Wound healing: an overview of acute, fibrotic and delayed healing. Front. Biosci. 9:283–89
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Darby IA, Hewitson TD 2007. Fibroblast differentiation in wound healing and fibrosis. Int. Rev. Cytol. 257:143–79
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Morigi V, Tocchio A, Bellavite Pellegrini C, Sakamoto JH, Arnone M, Tasciotti E 2012. Nanotechnology in medicine: from inception to market domination. J. Drug Deliv. 2012:389485
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Farrell D, Ptak K, Panaro NJ, Grodzinski P 2011. Nanotechnology-based cancer therapeutics—promise and challenge. Lessons learned through the NCI alliance for nanotechnology in cancer. Pharm. Res. 28:273–78
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Koutsopoulos S 2012. Molecular fabrications of smart nanobiomaterials and applications in personalized medicine. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 64:1459–76
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Kojima R, Aubel D, Fussenegger M 2015. Novel theranostic agents for next-generation personalized medicine: small molecules, nanoparticles, and engineered mammalian cells. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 28:29–38
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Kharlamov AN, Gabinsky JL 2012. Plasmonic photothermic and stem cell therapy of atherosclerotic plaque as a novel nanotool for angioplasty and artery remodeling. Rejuvenation Res 15:222–30
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Thiesen B, Jordan A 2008. Clinical applications of magnetic nanoparticles for hyperthermia. Int. J. Hyperth. 24:467–74
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Salah EDTA, Bakr MM, Kamel HM, Abdel KM 2010. Magnetite nanoparticles as a single dose treatment for iron deficiency anemia US Patent WO 2010034219 A1
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Bashir MR, Bhatti L, Marin D, Nelson RC 2015. Emerging applications for ferumoxytol as a contrast agent in MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 41:884–98
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Wang Y-XJ 2015. Current status of superparamagnetic iron oxide contrast agents for liver magnetic resonance imaging. World J. Gastroenterol. 21:13400–2
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Zhang Y et al. 2004. Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science 306:666–69
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Mattei TA, Rehman AA 2014. Technological developments and future perspectives on graphene-based metamaterials: a primer for neurosurgeons. Neurosurgery 74:499–516
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Sahni D, Jea A, Mata JA, Marcano DC, Sivaganesan A et al. 2013. Biocompatibility of pristine graphene for neuronal interface: laboratory investigation. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 11:575–83
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Menaa F, Abdelghani A, Menaa B 2015. Graphene nanomaterials as biocompatible and conductive scaffolds for stem cells: impact for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 9:1321–38
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Hopley EL, Salmasi S, Kalaskar DM, Seifalian AM 2014. Carbon nanotubes leading the way forward in new generation 3D tissue engineering. Biotechnol. Adv. 32:1000–14
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Voge CM, Stegemann JP 2011. Carbon nanotubes in neural interfacing applications. J. Neural Eng. 8:011001
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Ross AM, Jiang Z, Bastmeyer M, Lahann J 2012. Physical aspects of cell culture substrates: topography, roughness, and elasticity. Small 8:336–55
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Wang S, Wang X, Draenert FG, Albert O, Schröder HC et al. 2014. Bioactive and biodegradable silica biomaterial for bone regeneration. Bone 67:292–304
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Ghadiri M, Chrzanowski W, Rohanizadeh R 2015. Biomedical applications of cationic clay minerals. RSC Adv 5:29467–81
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Zeng R, Dietzel W, Witte F, Hort N, Blawert C 2008. Progress and challenge for magnesium alloys as biomaterials. Adv. Eng. Mater. 10:B3–14
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Dewi AH, Ana ID, Wolke J, Jansen J 2015. Behavior of POP–calcium carbonate hydrogel as bone substitute with controlled release capability: a study in rat. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 103:3273–83
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Shen F, Zhu Y, Li X, Luo R, Tu Q et al. 2015. Vascular cell responses to ECM produced by smooth muscle cells on TiO2 nanotubes. Appl. Surf. Sci. 349:589–98
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  Soenen SJ, Rivera-Gil P, Montenegro J-M, Parak WJ, De Smedt SC, Braeckmans K 2011. Cellular toxicity of inorganic nanoparticles: common aspects and guidelines for improved nanotoxicity evaluation. Nano Today 6:446–65
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Sharifi S, Behzadi S, Laurent S, Forrest ML, Stroeve P, Mahmoudi M 2012. Toxicity of nanomaterials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41:2323–43
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.  Matusiewicz H 2014. Potential release of in vivo trace metals from metallic medical implants in the human body: from ions to nanoparticles—a systematic analytical review. Acta Biomater. 10:2379–403
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Liu R, Liu HH, Ji Z, Chang CH, Xia T et al. 2015. Evaluation of toxicity ranking for metal oxide nanoparticles via an in vitro dosimetry model. ACS Nano 9:9303–13
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Utech S, Boccaccini AR 2015. A review of hydrogel-based composites for biomedical applications: enhancement of hydrogel properties by addition of rigid inorganic fillers. J. Mater. Sci. 51:271–310
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Butcher AL, Offeddu GS, Oyen ML 2014. Nanofibrous hydrogel composites as mechanically robust tissue engineering scaffolds. Trends Biotechnol 32:564–70
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  Braghirolli DI, Steffens D, Pranke P 2014. Electrospinning for regenerative medicine: a review of the main topics. Drug Discov. Today 19:743–53
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.  Rose S, Prevoteau A, Elzière P, Hourdet D, Marcellan A, Leibler L 2014. Nanoparticle solutions as adhesives for gels and biological tissues. Nature 505:382–85
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Shevach M, Maoz BM, Feiner R, Shapira A, Dvir T 2013. Nanoengineering gold particle composite fibers for cardiac tissue engineering. J. Mater. Chem. B 1:5210–17
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Kim T, Hyeon T 2014. Applications of inorganic nanoparticles as therapeutic agents. Nanotechnology 25:012001
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Guo D, Xie G, Luo J 2014. Mechanical properties of nanoparticles: basics and applications. J. Phys. D 47:013001
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Lauto A, Mawad D, Foster LJR 2008. Adhesive biomaterials for tissue reconstruction. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 83:464–72
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Sun L, Yi S, Wang Y, Pan K, Zhong Q, Zhang M 2014. A bio-inspired approach for in situ synthesis of tunable adhesive. Bioinspir. Biomim. 9:016005
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Liu Y, Meng H, Konst S, Sarmiento R, Rajachar R, Lee BP 2014. Injectable dopamine-modified poly(ethylene glycol) nanocomposite hydrogel with enhanced adhesive property and bioactivity. ACS Appl. Mater Interfaces 6:16982–92
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Huang HC, Walker CR, Nanda A, Rege K 2013. Laser welding of ruptured intestinal tissue using plasmonic polypeptide nanocomposite solders. ACS Nano 7:2988–98
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  Urie R, Quraishi S, Jaffe M, Rege K 2015. Gold nanorod–collagen nanocomposites as photothermal nanosolders for laser welding of ruptured porcine intestines. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 1:805–15
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.  Hajipour MJ, Fromm KM, Ashkarran AA, de Aberasturi DJ, de Larramendi IR et al. 2012. Antibacterial properties of nanoparticles. Trends Biotechnol 30:499–511
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.  Prabhu S, Poulose EK 2012. Silver nanoparticles: mechanism of antimicrobial action, synthesis, medical applications, and toxicity effects. Int. Nano Lett. 2:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Hayman ML 2009. The emerging product and patent landscape for nanosilver-containing medical devices. Nanotechnol. Law Bus. 6:148–58
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Durán N, Marcato PD, Conti RD, Alves OL, Costa F, Brocchi M 2010. Potential use of silver nanoparticles on pathogenic bacteria, their toxicity and possible mechanisms of action. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 21:949–59
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Yee W, Selvaduray G, Hawkins B 2015. Characterization of silver nanoparticle–infused tissue adhesive for ophthalmic use. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 55:67–74
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.  Whelove OE, Cozad MJ, Lee BD, Sengupta S, Bachman SL et al. 2011. Development and in vitro studies of a polyethylene terephthalate–gold nanoparticle scaffold for improved biocompatibility. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B 99:142–49
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Zhang S, Liu X, Wang H, Peng J, Wong KK 2014. Silver nanoparticle–coated suture effectively reduces inflammation and improves mechanical strength at intestinal anastomosis in mice. J. Pediatr. Surg. 49:606–13
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  Ye D, Zhong Z, Xu H, Chang C, Yang Z et al. 2015. Construction of cellulose/nanosilver sponge materials and their antibacterial activities for infected wounds healing. Cellulose 23:749–63
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.  Kang Y, Jung J-Y, Cho D, Kwon O, Cheon J, Park W 2016. Antimicrobial silver chloride nanoparticles stabilized with chitosan oligomer for the healing of burns. Materials 9:215
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Liang D, Lu Z, Yang H, Gao J, Chen R 2016. Novel asymmetric wettable AgNPs/chitosan wound dressing: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8:3958–68
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Jaiswal M, Koul V, Dinda AK 2016. In vitro and in vivo investigational studies of a nanocomposite-hydrogel-based dressing with a silver-coated chitosan wafer for full-thickness skin wounds. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 133:43472
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.  Levi-Polyachenko N, Jacob R, Day C, Kuthirummal N 2016. Chitosan wound dressing with hexagonal silver nanoparticles for hyperthermia and enhanced delivery of small molecules. Colloids Surf. B 142:315–24
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.  Archana D, Singh BK, Dutta J, Dutta PK 2015. Chitosan–PVP–nano silver oxide wound dressing: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 73:49–57
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.  Mandal A, Sekar S, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A, Sastry TP 2015. Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of collagen scaffolds crosslinked with aminosilane functionalized silver nanoparticles: in vitro and in vivo studies. J. Mater. Chem. B 3:3032–43
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.  Chhabra H, Deshpande R, Kanitkar M, Jaiswal A, Kale VP, Bellare JR 2016. A nano zinc oxide doped electrospun scaffold improves wound healing in a rodent model. RSC Adv 6:1428–39
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.  Akturk O, Kismet K, Yasti AC, Kuru S, Duymus ME et al. 2016. Collagen/gold nanoparticle nanocomposites: a potential skin wound healing biomaterial. J. Biomater. Appl. 31:283–301
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.  Patel A, Xue Y, Mukundan S, Rohan LC, Sant V et al. 2016. Cell-instructive graphene-containing nanocomposites induce multinucleated myotube formation. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 44:2036–48
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.  Vial S, Reis RL, Oliveira JM 2016. Recent advances using gold nanoparticles as a promising multimodal tool for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 21:92–112
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.  O'Brien FJ 2011. Biomaterials and scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater. Today 14:88–95
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.  Tada S, Kitajima T, Ito Y 2012. Design and synthesis of binding growth factors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13:6053–72
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.  Cohen-Karni T, Jeong KJ, Tsui JH, Reznor G, Mustata M et al. 2012. Nanocomposite gold–silk nanofibers. Nano Lett 12:5403–6
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.  Sorkin R, Greenbaum A, David-Pur M, Anava S, Ayali A et al. 2008. Process entanglement as a neuronal anchorage mechanism to rough surfaces. Nanotechnology 20:015101
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.  Shin SR, Bae H, Cha JM, Mun JY, Chen Y-C et al. 2011. Carbon nanotube reinforced hybrid microgels as scaffold materials for cell encapsulation. ACS Nano 6:362–72
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.  Huang HC, Barua S, Sharma G, Dey SK, Rege K 2011. Inorganic nanoparticles for cancer imaging and therapy. J. Control. Release 155:344–57
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.  Ordidge KL, Gregori M, Kalber TL, Lythgoe MF, Janes SM, Giangreco A 2014. Coupled cellular therapy and magnetic targeting for airway regeneration. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 42:657–61
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.  Vandergriff AC, Hensley TM, Henry ET, Shen D, Anthony S et al. 2014. Magnetic targeting of cardiosphere-derived stem cells with ferumoxytol nanoparticles for treating rats with myocardial infarction. Biomaterials 35:8528–39
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.  Chen J, Huang N, Ma B, Maitz MF, Wang J et al. 2013. Guidance of stem cells to a target destination in vivo by magnetic nanoparticles in a magnetic field. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 5:5976–85
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.  Al Kindi A, Ge Y, Shum-Tim D, Chiu RC 2008. Cellular cardiomyoplasty: routes of cell delivery and retention. Front. Biosci. 13:2421–34
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.  Huang Z, Shen Y, Sun A, Huang G, Zhu H et al. 2013. Magnetic targeting enhances retrograde cell retention in a rat model of myocardial infarction. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 4:149
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.  Riegler J, Liew A, Hynes SO, Ortega D, O'Brien T et al. 2013. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle targeting of MSCs in vascular injury. Biomaterials 34:1987–94
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.  Gil S, Correia CR, Mano JF 2015. Magnetically labeled cells with surface-modified Fe3O4 spherical and rod-shaped magnetic nanoparticles for tissue engineering applications. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 4:883–91
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.  Tukmachev D, Lunov O, Zablotskii V, Dejneka A, Babic M et al. 2015. An effective strategy of magnetic stem cell delivery for spinal cord injury therapy. Nanoscale 7:3954–58
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.  John AA, Subramanian AP, Vellayappan MV, Balaji A, Mohandas H, Jaganathan SK 2015. Carbon nanotubes and graphene as emerging candidates in neuroregeneration and neurodrug delivery. Int. J. Nanomed. 10:4267–77
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.  Bredesen DE, Rao RV, Mehlen P 2006. Cell death in the nervous system. Nature 443:796–802
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.  Dozol H, Mériguet G, Ancian B, Cabuil V, Xu H et al. 2013. On the synthesis of Au nanoparticles using EDTA as a reducing agent. J. Phys. Chem. C 117:20958–66
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.  Das S, Sharma M, Saharia D, Sarma KK, Sarma MG et al. 2015. In vivo studies of silk based gold nano-composite conduits for functional peripheral nerve regeneration. Biomaterials 62:66–75
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.  Baranes K, Shevach M, Shefi O, Dvir T 2016. Gold nanoparticle–decorated scaffolds promote neuronal differentiation and maturation. Nano Lett 16:2916–20
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.  Roman JA, Niedzielko TL, Haddon RC, Parpura V, Floyd CL 2011. Single-walled carbon nanotubes chemically functionalized with polyethylene glycol promote tissue repair in a rat model of spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma 28:2349–62
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.  Scapin G, Salice P, Tescari S, Menna E, De Filippis V, Filippini F 2015. Enhanced neuronal cell differentiation combining biomimetic peptides and a carbon nanotube–polymer scaffold. Nanomedicine 11:621–32
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.  López-Dolado E, González-Mayorga A, Gutiérrez MC, Serrano MC 2016. Immunomodulatory and angiogenic responses induced by graphene oxide scaffolds in chronic spinal hemisected rats. Biomaterials 99:72–81
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.  Tu Q, Pang L, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Zhang R et al. 2014. Effects of surface charges of graphene oxide on neuronal outgrowth and branching. Analyst 139:105–15
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.  Kong DF, Goldschmidt-Clermont PJ 2005. Tiny solutions for giant cardiac problems. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 15:207–11
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.  Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ et al. 2016. Executive summary. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update. A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 133:447
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.  Dvir T, Timko BP, Brigham MD, Naik SR, Karajanagi SS et al. 2011. Nanowired three-dimensional cardiac patches. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6:720–25
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.  Martins AM, Eng G, Caridade SG, Mano JF, Reis RL, Vunjak-Novakovic G 2014. Electrically conductive chitosan/carbon scaffolds for cardiac tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules 15:635–43
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.  Ahadian S, Ramón-Azcón J, Estili M, Liang X, Ostrovidov S et al. 2014. Hybrid hydrogels containing vertically aligned carbon nanotubes with anisotropic electrical conductivity for muscle myofiber fabrication. Sci. Rep. 4:4271
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.  Ahadian S, Yamada S, Ramón-Azcón J, Estili M, Liang X et al. 2016. Hybrid hydrogel-aligned carbon nanotube scaffolds to enhance cardiac differentiation of embryoid bodies. Acta Biomater 31:134–43
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.  Shin SR, Aghaei-Ghareh-Bolagh B, Gao X, Nikkhah M, Jung SM et al. 2014. Layer-by-layer assembly of 3D tissue constructs with functionalized graphene. Adv. Funct. Mater. 24:6136–44
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.  Hasan A, Khattab A, Islam MA, Hweij KA, Zeitouny J et al. 2015. Injectable hydrogels for cardiac tissue repair after myocardial infarction. Adv. Sci. 2:1500122
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.  Shokry H, Vanamo U, Wiltschka O, Niinimaki J, Lerche M et al. 2015. Mesoporous silica particle–PLA–PANI hybrid scaffolds for cell-directed intracellular drug delivery and tissue vascularization. Nanoscale 7:14434–43
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.  Zhao C, Andersen H, Ozyilmaz B, Ramaprabhu S, Pastorin G, Ho HK 2015. Spontaneous and specific myogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells on polyethylene glycol–linked multi-walled carbon nanotube films for skeletal muscle engineering. Nanoscale 7:18239–49
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.  Kwan KH, Yeung KW, Liu X, Wong KK, Shum HC et al. 2014. Silver nanoparticles alter proteoglycan expression in the promotion of tendon repair. Nanomedicine 10:1375–83
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.  Ostdiek AM, Ivey JR, Grant DA, Gopaldas J, Grant SA 2015. An in vivo study of a gold nanocomposite biomaterial for vascular repair. Biomaterials 65:175–83
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044457
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044457
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error