Inorganic Nanomaterials for Soft Tissue Repair and Regeneration

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
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]