Home
This Title All WIREs
WIREs RSS Feed
How to cite this WIREs title:
WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol
Impact Factor: 4.761

Nanotechnology for bone materials

Full article on Wiley Online Library:   HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

It has been established that for orthopedic‐related research, nanomaterials (materials defined as those with constituent dimensions less than 100 nm in at least one direction) have superior properties compared to conventional counterparts. This review summarizes studies that have demonstrated enhanced in vitro and in vivo osteoblast (bone‐forming cells) functions (such as adhesion, proliferation, synthesis of bone‐related proteins, and deposition of calcium‐containing mineral) on nanostructured metals, ceramics, polymers, and composites thereof compared to currently used implants. These results strongly imply that nanomaterials may improve osseointegration, which is crucial for long‐term implant efficacy. This review also focuses on novel drug‐carrying magnetic nanoparticles designed to treat various bone diseases (such as osteoporosis). Although further investigation of the in vivo responses and toxicity of these novel nanomaterials pertinent for orthopedic applications are needed, nanotechnology clearly has already demonstrated the ability to produce better bone implants and therefore should be further investigated. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This WIREs title offers downloadable PowerPoint presentations of figures for non-profit, educational use, provided the content is not modified and full credit is given to the author and publication.

Download a PowerPoint presentation of all images


Figure 1.

Representative AFM image of cortical bovine bone. Numerous nanostructured features on the surface of cortical bovine bone are visible. Root‐mean‐square values from AFM for 5 µm × 5 µm and 25 µm × 25 µm scans were 32 and 25 nm, respectively. (Reprinted with permission from Ref 6. Copyright 2005 Institute of Physics Publishing (IOP)).

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Figure 2.

Scanning electron microscopy images of Ti, CoCrMo, and Ti6A14V compacts. Increased nanostructured surface roughness was observed on nanophase compared to conventional Ti, CoCrMo, and Ti6A14V. Bar = 1 µm for nanophase compacts and 10 µm for conventional ones. (Reprinted with permission from Ref 21. Copyright 2004 Elsevier).

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Figure 3.

SEM micrographs of: (a) unanodized Ti, (b) anodized Ti without CNTs, (c) lower and (d) higher magnification of CNTs grown from the nanotubes of anodized Ti without a Co catalyst, and (e) lower and (f) higher magnification of CNTs grown from the nanotubes of anodized Ti surface with a Co catalyst. (Reprinted with permission from Ref 22. Copyright 2005 Institute of Physics Publishing (IOP)).

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Figure 4.

Scanning electron micrographs of chemically treated PLGA surfaces. Representative scanning electron micrograph images of (a) chemically untreated (conventional) PLGA (feature dimensions 10,000–15,000 nm) and (b) chemically treated nano‐structured PLGA (feature dimensions 50–100 nm). Scale bar = 100,000 nm. (Reprinted with permission from Ref 49. Copyright 2003 Elsevier).

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Figure 5.

AFM images of nanophase titania and the PLGA mold of nanophase titania, conventional titania and the PLGA mold of conventional titania. Images provided evidence of the successful transfer of the surface roughness of nanophase titania to PLGA molds of nanophase titania, and conventional titania to PLGA moulds of conventional titania. Root‐mean‐square values from AFM for nanophase titania at 5 rmmum × 5 µm and 25 µm × 25 µm scans were 29 and 22 nm, respectively. Root‐mean‐square values from AFM for the PLGA mold of nanophase titania at 5 µm × 5 µm and 25 µm × 25 µm scans were 35 and 27 nm, respectively. Root‐mean‐square values from AFM for conventional titania at 5 µm × 5 µm and 25 µm × 25 µm scans were 12 and 11 nm, respectively. Root‐mean‐square values from AFM for the PLGA mold of conventional titania at 5 µm × 5 µm and 25 µm × 25 µm scans were 13 and 12 nm, respectively. (a) Nanophase titania. (b) PLGA mold of nanophase titania. (c) Conventional titania. (d) PLGA mold of conventional titania. (Reprinted with permission from Ref 6. Copyright 2005 Institute of Physics Publishing (IOP)).

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Figure 6.

Transmission electron microscope (TEM) images of (a) γ‐Fe2O3 and (b) Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles. Scale bars = 20 nm.

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Related Articles

Systems analysis of bone (WIREs Systems Biology and Medicine )
Atomic force microscopy and indentation force measurement of bone
Nanotechnology and orthopedics: a personal perspective

Browse by Topic

Implantable Materials and Surgical Technologies > 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

In the Spotlight

Mauro Ferrari

Mauro Ferrari

started out in mechanical engineering and became interested in nanotechnology with his studies on nanomechanics and nanofluidics. His research work and involvement with setting up some of the premier nano centers and alliances in the world, bringing together universities, hospitals, and federal agencies, showcases interdisciplinarity at work.

Learn More

Twitter: smalljournal Follow us on Twitter

    Highly Conductive, Capacitive, Flexible and Soft Electrodes Based on a 3D Graphene–Nanotube–Palladium Hybrid and... http://t.co/DcLdIpc97j
    Solvent Effects on Polymer Sorting of Carbon Nanotubes with Applications in Printed Electronics http://t.co/cQCY37A0fI
    Layered Double Hydroxide-based Nanomaterials as Highly Efficient Catalysts and Adsorbents http://t.co/jmykgCs2pI