Carolina Montoya1, Yu Du2,3, Anthony L Gianforcaro4, Santiago Orrego1,4, Maobin Yang1,2,4, Peter I Lelkes5,6. 1. Department of Oral Health Sciences, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA. 2. Department of Endodontology, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA. 3. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 4. Bioengineering Department, College of Engineering, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. 5. Department of Endodontology, Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA. pilelkes@temple.edu. 6. Bioengineering Department, College of Engineering, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. pilelkes@temple.edu.
Abstract
The demand for biomaterials that promote the repair, replacement, or restoration of hard and soft tissues continues to grow as the population ages. Traditionally, smart biomaterials have been thought as those that respond to stimuli. However, the continuous evolution of the field warrants a fresh look at the concept of smartness of biomaterials. This review presents a redefinition of the term "Smart Biomaterial" and discusses recent advances in and applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissue restoration and regeneration. To clarify the use of the term "smart biomaterials", we propose four degrees of smartness according to the level of interaction of the biomaterials with the bio-environment and the biological/cellular responses they elicit, defining these materials as inert, active, responsive, and autonomous. Then, we present an up-to-date survey of applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissues, based on the materials' responses (external and internal stimuli) and their use as immune-modulatory biomaterials. Finally, we discuss the limitations and obstacles to the translation from basic research (bench) to clinical utilization that is required for the development of clinically relevant applications of these technologies.
The demand for biomaterials that promote the repair, replacement, or restoration of hard and soft tissues continues to grow as the population ages. Traditionally, smart biomaterials have been thought as those that respond to stimuli. However, the continuous evolution of the field warrants a fresh look at the concept of smartness of biomaterials. This review presents a redefinition of the term "Smart Biomaterial" and discusses recent advances in and applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissue restoration and regeneration. To clarify the use of the term "smart biomaterials", we propose four degrees of smartness according to the level of interaction of the biomaterials with the bio-envpan class="Chemical">ironment and the biological/cellular responses they elicit, defining these materials as inert, active, responsive, and autonomous. Then, we present an up-to-date survey of applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissues, based on the materials' responses (external and internal stimuli) and their use as immune-modulatory biomaterials. Finally, we discuss the limitations and obstacles to the translation from basic research (bench) to clinical utilization that is required for the development of clinically relevant applications of these technologies.
Authors: Mary Anne Melo; Santiago Orrego; Michael D Weir; Huakun H K Xu; Dwayne D Arola Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Fanlu Wang; Lena Marie Saure; Fabian Schütt; Felix Lorich; Florian Rasch; Ali Shaygan Nia; Xinliang Feng; Andreas Seekamp; Tim Klüter; Hendrik Naujokat; Rainer Adelung; Sabine Fuchs Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 5.923