Home
This Title All WIREs
WIREs RSS Feed
How to cite this WIREs title:
WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol
Impact Factor: 6.14

Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for tissue‐engineering applications

Full article on Wiley Online Library:   HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

Abstract Mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) have been widely investigated as a nanocarrier for the delivery of various cargoes in nanomedicine. The application of MSNs in tissue engineering is a relatively newly emerged field that has gained much research interest. In this review, the recent advances in the tissue‐engineering application of MSNs are summarized. The controlled synthesis of MSNs is delineated first in terms of tuning the morphology, pore size of MSNs, and its surface chemistry, as well as biodegradability. Then, the different roles of MSNs in tissue engineering are successively introduced, which mainly comprise the delivery of bioactive factors, the inherent bioactivity of MSNs, stem cells labelling, and the impacts of incorporated MSNs on scaffolds. Furthermore, the recent progress in the applications of MSNs for tissue engineering, particularly bone tissue engineering, is summarized in detail. Finally, the challenges or potential trends for the further applications of MSNs in tissue engineering are also discussed. This article is categorized under: Implantable Materials and Surgical Technologies > Nanotechnology in Tissue Repair and Replacement Implantable Materials and Surgical Technologies > Nanomaterials and Implants
The schematic illustration of mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) with different morphology and pore sizes demonstrates multiple functionalities and can be applied for various tissue engineering purposes
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Schematic illustration of the preparation of (A) S1P‐loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs), (B) bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2)‐immobilized poly(lactic‐co‐glycolic acid) (PLGA) microspheres, and (C) the dual‐loaded composite scaffold. (D) Schematic illustration of Ag NPs‐incorporated MSG for hemostasis and wound healing. (E) In vivo evaluation of hemostatic efficacy of AgNPs‐MSG. (a‐e) The photographs of the establishment of liver injury model and its treatment with Ag NPs‐MSG. (f) The hemostatic time and (h) hematoxylin & eosin section of liver injury under different treatments, which indicated that the hemostasis effect of AgNPs‐MSG was much more effective than hemostasis gauze
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
(a) The preparation of BMP‐2 peptide‐modified and dexamethasone (DEX)‐loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs). (b) The cellular uptake of MSNs and MSNs‐pep in bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity of BMSCs after being treated with different samples. (c) Schematic illustration of the impact of DEX@MSNs‐pep on the osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs. (d) Schematic illustration of RGD‐modified and pDNA‐ and DEX‐coloaded MSNs for enhanced osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs. (e) The CLSM of BMSCs after being incubated without or with RGD‐modified MSNs for 24 hr. (f) The intracellular bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (BMP‐2) protein expression in BMSCs treated with pBMP‐2‐loaded hybrid MSNs. The ALP activity and the RUNX gene expression of BMSCs treated with different samples. Reprinted with permission from (Zhou, Feng, et al., ) (Zhou et al., )
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
(a) Schematic illustration of the osteogenic and angiogenesis effect of dimethyloxaloylglycine (DMOG)‐loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) toward human bone marrow stromal cells (hBMSCs). (b) The expression level of osteo‐related protein in hBMSCs after being treated with different conditions. (c) Schematic illustration of the stimulation effect of released Si ion and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) from silica microcarriers on the angiogenic events in endothelial cells. Reprinted with permission from (Shi et al., ) (Dashnyam et al., )
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
(a) Schematic illustration of the preparation of DEX@MSNs‐incorporated composite scaffold. (b) SEM images of (a) the pure and (b, c, d) composite scaffolds fabricated at different deposition potentials. (c) the micro‐CT images of rats' calvarial bone at different time points postimplantation of scaffolds and three‐dimensional reconstruction images after 24 weeks. Reprinted with permission from (Qiu et al., ). DEX, dexamethasone; MSN, mesoporous silica nanoparticle; PCL, poly(ε‐caprolactone); PLLA, poly(L‐lactide)
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
TEM images of (a) of B‐80‐dia immersed in PBS for (a) 0, (b) 1, (c) 2, (d) 3, (e) 5, and (f) 6 days. (B) SiO2‐MB nanoparticles immersed in deionized water for (a) 1, (b) 4, (c) 9, and (d) 14 days. (c) The releasing profiles of (a) Mn and (b) Si elements of Mn‐HMSNs immersed in simulated body fluid (SBF) with various concentrations of glutathione (GSH). The corresponding TEM images of Mn‐HMSNs after being incubated for (c, f) 6, (d, g) 12, and (e, h) 48 hr in SBF solutions with (c, d, e) lower and (f, g, h) higher GSH concentrations. Reprinted with permission from (Yamada et al., ) (Zhang et al., ) (Yu et al., )
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Scanning electron microscope (SEM) and TEM images of (a) mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) with wrinkle structure prepared at different ratios of cyclohexane to water, (b) the single‐generation three‐dimensional dendritic MSNs with enlarged pore sizes prepared by different upper organic phase (a: octadecene; b: decahydronaphthalene, c: cyclohexane; d: three‐generation dendritic MSNs), and (c) the virus‐like MSNs at different magnifications. (d) CLSM images of HeLa cells incubated with solid silica nanoparticles, large‐pore MSNs, and virus‐like MSNs for different times. (e) TEM images of virus‐like mesoporous silica‐coated (a) Fe3O4, (b) graphene oxide, (c) Ag nanocubes, and (d) Au nanorods. Reprinted with permission from (Moon & Lee, ) (Shen et al., ) (Wang et al., )
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
(a) Transmission electron microscope (TEM) images of mesoporous silica nanoparticles of different sizes by controlling the amount of alkaline catalyst; scale bar was 50 nm. (b) TEM images (a, b, c) and the corresponding confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) images (d, e, f) of the MSNs or rod‐like MSNs with different aspect ratios. (c) TEM images of mesoporous organosilica nanoparticles with various aspect ratios (aspect ratio = (a) 1.4:1, (b) 2.3:1, (c) 4:1, (d) 9.5:1). Reprinted with permission from (Pan et al., ) (Huang et al., ) (Yu, Chen, Lin, Du, et al., )
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Browse by Topic

Implantable Materials and Surgical Technologies > Nanomaterials and Implants
Implantable Materials and Surgical Technologies > Nanotechnology in Tissue Repair and Replacement

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox

Sign Up for Article Alerts