Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 + 2120 word(s) 2120 2021-09-15 07:58:40 |
2 Format change + 1 word(s) 2121 2021-09-27 08:18:26 | |
3 Format change Meta information modification 2120 2021-09-27 08:18:51 | |
4 format changed Meta information modification 2120 2021-09-28 05:01:07 | |
5 format changed Meta information modification 2120 2021-09-28 05:02:25 | |
6 format changed Meta information modification 2120 2021-09-28 05:03:02 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Kim, B. Potential of Carbon-Based Nanocomposites. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 29 November 2023).
Kim B. Potential of Carbon-Based Nanocomposites. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed November 29, 2023.
Kim, Bongju. "Potential of Carbon-Based Nanocomposites" Encyclopedia, (accessed November 29, 2023).
Kim, B.(2021, September 27). Potential of Carbon-Based Nanocomposites. In Encyclopedia.
Kim, Bongju. "Potential of Carbon-Based Nanocomposites." Encyclopedia. Web. 27 September, 2021.
Potential of Carbon-Based Nanocomposites

While conventional dental implants focus on mechanical properties, recent advances in functional carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) accelerated the facilitation of functionalities including osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and osseointegration. The surface functionalization with CNMs in dental implants has emerged as a novel strategy for reinforcement and as a bioactive cue due to their potential for mechanical reinforcing, osseointegration, and antimicrobial properties. Numerous developments in the fabrication and biological studies of CNMs have provided various opportunities to expand their application to dental regeneration and restoration. In this review, we discuss the advances in novel dental implants with CNMs in terms of tissue engineering, including material combination, coating strategies, and biofunctionalities. We present a brief overview of recent findings and progression in the research to show the promising aspect of CNMs for dental implant application. In conclusion, it is shown that further development of surface functionalization with CNMs may provide innovative results with clinical potential for improved osseointegration after implantation. 

carbon nanomaterial osseointegration osteogenesis

1. Introduction

Up to now, metal and metal alloy composites, including titanium, gold, stainless steel, and cobalt-chromium, have been utilized for dental implants due to their toughness, shear/fracture-resistance, and noncorrosive property [1][2][3][4][5]. Despite their superior mechanical characteristics, low biocompatibility has become a major concern. Toxic effects caused by ions released from metallic implants induce adverse tissue reactions that lead to a low success rate in long-term clinical applications [6]. Furthermore, metal-based dental implants need a long time to be integrated with natural bone (three to six months) owing to their non-bioactive nature that leads to low cytocompatibility and osseointegration debasement [7][8]. Furthermore, with recent advances in personalized and biofunctional dental implants, the conventional metal-based materials hold the faintest hope for three-dimensional (3D) printability, antibacterial properties, and drug delivery capacity [9][10].
While conventional dental implants focus on mechanical properties, recent advances in functional materials accelerated the facilitation of functionalities including osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and osseointegration. Osteoinduction is the process that stimulates immature cells toward preosteoblasts to start the bone healing process. Osteoconduction means that new bone grows on a material surface. Osseointegration means the facilitation of stable anchorage by bone-to-implant contact which is achieved by high osteoinduction and osteoconduction properties [11]. Novel composite materials have been employed as a powerful tool for the alteration of physicochemical and biological properties of dental implants that allows preferred bioactivity and reducing side effects. Especially nanomaterial-based surface functionalization offers several advantages, including (i) controllable micron/nanometer-sized topography, (ii) exceptional reactivity by high surface–volume ratio, (iii) unique cell-matrix interaction, and (iv) mechanical reinforcement, which regulate bone cell behaviors and improve mechanical properties of the dental implant [12]. Nanomaterial-functionalized surfaces highly affect cell-matrix interaction, endowing cells facilitation including survival, differentiation capability, and activity of cells. Placement of dental implants on bone tissue activates the cellular events that lead to the formation of new bone directly on the implant surface [13]. From a clinical perspective, facilitation of bone gain, which is promoted by biochemical activities of nanomaterials, is recently highlighted for successful surgery and implant rehabilitation [14][15][16]. Furthermore, tailored control of cellular behaviors offers the possibility on orthodontic treatment such as unilateral condylar hyperplasia [17]. Therefore, nanomaterial-modified surface chemistry and topography are known to activate direct cell-matrix contact to stem cells and precursor cells, leading to higher proliferation and differentiation rate into osteogenic lineages by upregulation of osteogenic genes [18][19][20].
Carbon nanomaterials (CNMs) can be divided into carbon nanodot (CND), graphene (G) and its derivatives (graphene oxide; GO, reduced graphene oxide, rGO), fullerene, carbon nanotube (CNT), and nanodiamond (ND) (Figure 1). Over the past decade, CNMs are the most highlighted nanomaterials (NMs) in various fields such as aerospace, space, electricity, electronics, and optics. CNMs have revolutionized the biomedical field with antibacterial paper [21][22], targeted drug delivery [23][24][25], in vitro/in vivo bioimaging [26][27][28], tissue engineering scaffolds [29][30], and dental/orthopedic implants [31][32][33], with their extraordinary inherent properties.
Materials 14 05104 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of CNM functionalization on dental implants for dental tissue engineering and regeneration. (A) Graphic of CNM-functionalized implants and chemical composition of the CNM family, including graphene, CNT, CND, fullerene, and ND. Enhanced properties were demonstrated, such as (B) mechanical reinforcement, (C) an antimicrobial effect, and (D) osseointegration.
In this review, we discuss the advances in novel dental implants with CNMs in terms of tissue engineering, including material combination, coating strategies, and functionalities (Table 1). Recent studies on CNM functionalization for dental application were sorted by a PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2). We present a brief overview of recent findings and progression in the research to show the promising aspect of CNMs for dental implant application.
Materials 14 05104 g002 550
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram denoting literature search criteria.

2. Biocompatibility of CNMs

The extensive potentials of CNM for biomedical application have been highlighted, including antibacterial [34][35], cell adhesion and proliferation [36][37], inducing osteogenic [38][39], osteoconduction [40][41], and osseointegration effects [42]. However, biocompatibility, which often shows contradictory or inconclusive results, has issues that should be elucidated. The biocompatibility of CNMs often time-, size-, and dose-dependently works, however, it varies by raw materials, fabrication methods, and physicochemical functionalization [43][44][45]. Since it is difficult to draw accurate conclusions, we intend to provide guidelines for later studies by comparing relevant studies.
GO’s dose-dependent cytotoxicity on bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs) and assessed toxicity mechanisms were investigated [46]. GO significantly inhibited cell viability at ≥2.5 µg/mL by interrupting membrane integrity. At the same concentration, cell apoptosis was one-and-a-half-fold increased but did not hinder the cell proliferation cycle significantly. Furthermore, ≥2.5 µg/mL of GO induced intracellular ROS generation, inducing ROS-associated damage, and caused cell dysfunction which was assessed by mitochondria membrane potential (MMP) loss. Western blotting showed upregulation of Cleaved Caspase-3, LC3-II/I, and Beclin-1 and downregulation of Bcl-2 and Caspase-3, indicating that GO-mediated cytotoxicity is related to mitochondrial autophagy and triggering cellular apoptosis. The hemolytic and cytotoxic effects of GO, which are synthesized in various methods, showed varying results according to their sizes, particulate states, surface charges, and oxygen contents [47]. Hemolysis and morphologies of red blood cells (RBCs), intracellular ROS generation, and fibroblast viability were significantly different according to the fabrication methods, suggesting that the particulate state of G materials has a profound impact on cytotoxicity. The cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of different CNMs are proven to be material-specific and cell-specific with a general trend for biocompatibility (ND > carbon powder > MWCNT > SWCNT > fullerene) [48]. For example, macrophages are more cytotoxic than neuroblastoma cells, and CNT and MWCNT tend to cause DNA damage in mouse embryonic stem cells by ROS generation [48]. NDs possess minimal cytotoxicity because their chemical inertness does not release any toxic chemicals and round morphologies [49]. Carboxylated NDs were shown to not exhibit cytotoxicity or genotoxicity on human cell lines including liver, kidney, intestine, and lung cell lines, which are major accumulation organs after the nanoparticles are injected [50]. On the other hand, fullerene shows significant cytotoxicity mainly contributing to ROS generation. Fullerenes under ambient water conditions can generate superoxide anions that are responsible for membrane damage and subsequent cell death [51].
For clinical usages including drug delivery, bioimaging, biosensing, and other theragnostic applications, in vivo toxicity of CNMs has been intensively studied. To understand the potential threat of CNMs in the body, biodistribution and accumulation mechanisms should be elucidated. The accumulation of GO in mouse lung induced oxidative stress by an increase of mitochondrial respiration and activated inflammatory and apoptotic pathways [52]. On the other hand, surface functionalization and chemical modification have been introduced to enhance the biocompatibility and biofunctionality of G materials [53][54][55]. The PEGlyated GO and rGO were developed for oral and intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection, and the biodistribution was investigated [56]. After seven days, oral administration could not be adsorbed by organs and rapidly excreted, however, i.p.-administered PEGlyated GO and rGO were accumulated most highly in the liver and spleen but were finally engulfed by phagocytes in size- and surface coating-related manner. The results indicated that no significant toxicity was found in serum biochemistry, complete blood panel test, and histological analysis, indicating that PEGylation can facilitate biocompatibility of G materials. In a similar study, intravenous (i.v.) injected G quantum dots (GQDs) did not exhibit to vital organs of rats, although slight reduction of platelets and monocyte and eosinophil fractions occurred, which were soon normalized [57]. After respiratory administration, CNT remains in the lungs for months or even years and is eliminated through the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. It does not cross the pulmonary barrier or get absorbed in the GI tract [58][59]. A single intratracheal instillation of SWCNT triggered epithelial granulomas and interstitial inflammation, developing peribronchial inflammation and necrosis [60].
Table 1. Recent studies on CNMs for dental implant application.
Classification of CNM Conjugation/Combination/Modification Material Physicochemical Advances Osteogenic/Antimicrobial Activities Biological Evaluation (Species) Reference
Graphene Zinc oxide nanocomposite coating on the acrylic tooth - Antimicrobial and nontoxicity on human cell In vitro (S. mutans, HEK-293 cell) [32]
G nanoplatelet coating - Antimicrobial effect In vitro (S. aureus) [61]
G-doped PMMA - Increased bone formation indexes (NBF, BMI, LBD, BIC, BAIT, and BAOT) In vivo (rabbit) [62]
Composite with Y-Zr ceramics Increased density, Vickers hardness,
bending strength, fracture toughness, and wettability
- - [63]
Graphene oxide GO/3Y–ZrO2 composite Reduced friction coefficient, wear rate, surface roughness. Increased wetting property. Increased cell adhesion, proliferation, and ALP activity. In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell) [64]
NT/GO-PEG-PEI/siRNA - Enhanced cell adhesion, proliferation, uptake/knockdown efficiency, osteogenic gene expression, ALP activity, collagen secretion, ECM mineralization, and in vivo osseointegration In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell) and in vivo (mouse) [65]
MH-loaded GO film on Ti - Prevention and therapeutic effect on peri-implantitis In vivo (Beagle dog) [66]
Nano GO-coated Ti/SLA surface Rough and irregular surface, wettability, protein adsorption Enhanced cell proliferation, cell area, focal adhesion formation, mineralization, and osteogenic gene expression via the FAK/MAPK signaling pathway In vitro (rBMSC) and in vivo (SD rat) [67]
MMP-2/SP-loaded GO/Ti Enhanced roughness and wettability MMP-2/SP delivery facilitated new bone formation In vivo (mouse) [68]
GO/PEEK Surface roughness and wettability Antibacterial ability, enhanced cell viability, proliferation, ALP activity, mineralization nodule formation, osteogenic gene expression In vitro (MG-63 cell, E. coli and S. aureus) [69]
Reduced graphene oxide DCP-rGO composites Controllable hybridization ratio Cell proliferation, ALP activity, and mineralization In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell) [70]
Dex/GO-Ti and Dex/rGO-Ti Dex-loading capacity Cell proliferation, osteogenic gene expression, and mineralization In vitro (rBMSC) [71]
Dex/rGO-coated Ti13Nb13Zr Enhanced wettability and fatigue property Enhanced cell viability, mineralization, and osteogenic gene upregulation In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell) [72]
rGO/FHAp composites Enhanced mechanical strength (GPa, MPa), ion dissolution time Enhanced cell proliferation, ALP activity, and anti-adhesion/proliferation on bacteria In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell and S. mutans) [73]
rGO-coated Ti6Al4V alloy - Enhanced cell viability, adhesion, proliferation, mineralization nodule formation, ALP activity, and osteogenic gene expression In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell) [74]
Carbon nanodot Nitrogen-doped CND/HA composite   Enhanced cell proliferation, ALP activity, mineralization nodule formation, and osteogenic gene expression.
Bone regeneration in zebrafish jawbone model
In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell) and in vivo (zebreafish) [75]
CND/chitosan/HAp composite Photothermal effect Cell adhesion and osteogenesis, no lobulated neutrophils, osteocyte proliferation, tumor cell killing effects, and antibacterial effects In vitro (rat BMSC, S. aureus and E. coli) and in vivo (mouse) [76]
Carbon nanotube MWCNT-reinforced HAp coated Ti6Al4V implant Cost-effective and rapid coating via electrophoresis.
No microcracking, increased bond strength, and peeling resistance.
MWCNT-reinforced HAp/316L SS implant High corrosion protection and corrosion current density Antibacterial effects and
nanoflake morphology for enhancing bioactive potential
In vitro (B. subtilis, S. aureus, S. flexneri and E. coli) [78]
Cu-HAp/MWCNT composite coating on 316L SS implant High corrosion resistance Antibacterial effect, maintained cell viability, hemolytic activity In vitro (human osteoblast, human RBC, B. subtilis, E. coli, S. aureus, and S.mutans) [79]
Nano HAp/MWCNT coated stainless steel Increased surface roughness No damage on the cellular membrane and enhanced expression of osteogenic markers. In vitro (MG-63 cell) [80]
Nanodiamond ND/amorphous carbon composite - Enhanced fibronectin expression, attachment, proliferation, differentiation, calcium deposition, and ALP activity. In vitro (EPC) [81]
Icariin-functionalized ND composite - Icariin delivery, enhanced cell viability, particle uptake, ALP activity, calcium deposition, and osteogenic marker upregulation. In vitro (MC3T3-E1 cell) [82]
Mg-nanodiamond composite pH buffering, corrosion resistance, chemical passivation Moderate cell viability In vitro (L-929 cell) [83]
Abbreviations: alkaline phosphatase (ALP), Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis), bone area inner threads (BAIT), bone area outer threads (BAOT), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell (BMSC), bone mature index (BMI), bone-to-implant contact (BIC), dexamethasone (Dex), dicalcium phosphate (DCP), Escherichia coli (E. coli), extracellular matrix (ECM), endothelial progenitor cells (EPC), fluorhydroxyapatite (FHAp), hydroxyapatite (HAp), lamellar bone direct contact (LBD), minocycline hydrochloride (MH), morphogenetic protein-2 (MMP-2), new bone formation(NBF), Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyethyleneimine (PEI), poly(methyl-methacrylate) (PMMA), red blood cell (RBC), sandblasting and acid etching (SLA), Shigella flexneri (S. flexneri), siRNA (small interfering), Staphylococcus Aureus (S. aureus), Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans), substance P (SP), rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell (rBMSC), titania nanotube (NT), titanium (Ti), yttria-zirconia (Y-Zr), 3Y (three-mol yttria-stabilized).


  1. Adya, N.; Alam, M.; Ravindranath, T.; Mubeen, A.; Saluja, B. Corrosion in titanium dental implants: Literature review. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2005, 5, 126–131.
  2. Teigen, K.; Jokstad, A. Dental implant suprastructures using cobalt–chromium alloy compared with gold alloy framework veneered with ceramic or acrylic resin: A retrospective cohort study up to 18 years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 853–860.
  3. Karamian, E.; Motamedi, M.R.K.; Khandan, A.; Soltani, P.; Maghsoudi, S. An in vitro evaluation of novel NHA/zircon plasma coating on 316L stainless steel dental implant. Prog. Nat. Sci. 2014, 24, 150–156.
  4. Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Cheng, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Ruan, L. In vitro and in vivo studies on Ti-based bulk metallic glass as potential dental implant material. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2013, 33, 3489–3497.
  5. Dos Santos, M.C.L.G.; Campos, M.I.G.; Line, S.R.P. Early dental implant failure: A review of the literature. Braz. J. Oral Sci. 2002, 1, 103–111.
  6. Hanawa, T. Metal ion release from metal implants. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2004, 24, 745–752.
  7. Tillander, J.; Hagberg, K.; Hagberg, L.; Brånemark, R. Osseointegrated titanium implants for limb prostheses attachments: Infectious complications. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2010, 468, 2781–2788.
  8. Tejero, R.; Anitua, E.; Orive, G. Toward the biomimetic implant surface: Biopolymers on titanium-based implants for bone regeneration. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2014, 39, 1406–1447.
  9. Khorsandi, D.; Fahimipour, A.; Abasian, P.; Saber, S.S.; Seyedi, M.; Ghanavati, S.; Ahmad, A.; De Stephanis, A.A.; Taghavinezhaddilami, F.; Leonova, A.; et al. 3D and 4D printing in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery: Printing techniques, materials, and applications. Acta Biomater. 2020, 122, 26–49.
  10. Makvandi, P.; Josic, U.; Delfi, M.; Pinelli, F.; Jahed, V.; Kaya, E.; Ashrafizadeh, M.; Zarepour, A.; Rossi, F.; Zarrabi, A. Drug delivery (nano) platforms for oral and dental applications: Tissue regeneration, infection control, and cancer management. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, 2004014–2004041.
  11. Albrektsson, T.; Johansson, C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur. Spine J. 2001, 10, S96–S101.
  12. Kang, M.S.; Lee, J.H.; Hong, S.W.; Lee, J.H.; Han, D.-W. Nanocomposites for enhanced osseointegration of dental and orthopedic implants revisited: Surface functionalization by carbon nanomaterial coatings. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 23.
  13. Pellegrini, G.; Francetti, L.; Barbaro, B.; Del Fabbro, M. Novel surfaces and osseointegration in implant dentistry. J. Investig. Clin. Dent. 2018, 9, e12349–e12357.
  14. Crespi, R.; Capparè, P.; Gherlone, E. Sinus floor elevation by osteotome: Hand mallet versus electric mallet. A prospective clinical study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2012, 27, 1144–1150.
  15. Ge, Z.; Yang, L.; Xiao, F.; Wu, Y.; Yu, T.; Chen, J.; Lin, J.; Zhang, Y. Graphene family nanomaterials: Properties and potential applications in dentistry. Int. J. Biomater. 2018, 2018, 1–12.
  16. Besinis, A.; De Peralta, T.; Tredwin, C.J.; Handy, R.D. Review of nanomaterials in dentistry: Interactions with the oral microenvironment, clinical applications, hazards, and benefits. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 2255–2289.
  17. Portelli, M.; Gatto, E.; Matarese, G.; Militi, A.; Catalfamo, L.; Gherlone, E.; Lucchese, A. Unilateral condylar hyperplasia: Diagnosis, clinical aspects and operative treatment. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2015, 16, 100–103.
  18. Park, J.-W.; Hanawa, T.; Chung, J.-H. The relative effects of Ca and Mg ions on MSC osteogenesis in the surface modification of microrough Ti implants. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 5697–5711.
  19. Rosa, A.; Kato, R.; Castro Raucci, L.; Teixeira, L.; de Oliveira, F.; Bellesini, L.; de Oliveira, P.; Hassan, M.; Beloti, M. Nanotopography drives stem cell fate toward osteoblast differentiation through α1β1 integrin signaling pathway. J. Cell. Biochem. 2014, 115, 540–548.
  20. Kim, E.J.; Boehm, C.A.; Mata, A.; Fleischman, A.J.; Muschler, G.F.; Roy, S. Post microtextures accelerate cell proliferation and osteogenesis. Acta Biomater. 2010, 6, 160–169.
  21. Hu, W.; Peng, C.; Luo, W.; Lv, M.; Li, X.; Li, D.; Huang, Q.; Fan, C. Graphene-based antibacterial paper. ACS Nano 2010, 4, 4317–4323.
  22. Ji, H.; Sun, H.; Qu, X. Antibacterial applications of graphene-based nanomaterials: Recent achievements and challenges. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016, 105, 176–189.
  23. Sun, X.; Liu, Z.; Welsher, K.; Robinson, J.T.; Goodwin, A.; Zaric, S.; Dai, H. Nano-graphene oxide for cellular imaging and drug delivery. Nano Res. 2008, 1, 203–212.
  24. Depan, D.; Shah, J.; Misra, R. Controlled release of drug from folate-decorated and graphene mediated drug delivery system: Synthesis, loading efficiency, and drug release response. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2011, 31, 1305–1312.
  25. Iannazzo, D.; Pistone, A.; Salamò, M.; Galvagno, S.; Romeo, R.; Giofré, S.V.; Branca, C.; Visalli, G.; Di Pietro, A. Graphene quantum dots for cancer targeted drug delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 518, 185–192.
  26. Kim, H.; Namgung, R.; Singha, K.; Oh, I.-K.; Kim, W.J. Graphene oxide–polyethylenimine nanoconstruct as a gene delivery vector and bioimaging tool. Bioconjug. Chem. 2011, 22, 2558–2567.
  27. Zhu, C.; Du, D.; Lin, Y. Graphene and graphene-like 2D materials for optical biosensing and bioimaging: A review. 2D Mater. 2015, 2, 032004–032013.
  28. Zang, Z.; Zeng, X.; Wang, M.; Hu, W.; Liu, C.; Tang, X. Tunable photoluminescence of water-soluble AgInZnS–graphene oxide (GO) nanocomposites and their application in-vivo bioimaging. Sensor. Actuators B Chem. 2017, 252, 1179–1186.
  29. Kang, M.S.; Lee, J.H.; Song, S.-J.; Shin, D.-M.; Jang, J.-H.; Hyon, S.-H.; Hong, S.W.; Lee, J.H.; Han, D.-W. Graphene oxide-functionalized nanofibre composite matrices to enhance differentiation of hippocampal neuronal cells. Mater. Adv. 2020, 1, 3496–3506.
  30. Shin, Y.C.; Song, S.-J.; Lee, J.H.; Park, R.; Kang, M.S.; Lee, Y.B.; Hong, S.W.; Han, D.-W. Different alignment between skeletal and smooth muscle cells on reduced graphene oxide-patterned arrays. Sci. Adv. Mater. 2020, 12, 474–480.
  31. Kang, M.S.; Jeong, S.J.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, B.; Hong, S.W.; Lee, J.H.; Han, D.-W. Reduced graphene oxide coating enhances osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells on Ti surfaces. Biomater. Res. 2021, 25, 1–9.
  32. Kulshrestha, S.; Khan, S.; Meena, R.; Singh, B.R.; Khan, A.U. A graphene/zinc oxide nanocomposite film protects dental implant surfaces against cariogenic Streptococcus mutans. Biofouling 2014, 30, 1281–1294.
  33. Zhao, C.; Lu, X.; Zanden, C.; Liu, J. The promising application of graphene oxide as coating materials in orthopedic implants: Preparation, characterization and cell behavior. Biomed. Mater. 2015, 10, 015019–015028.
  34. Liu, S.; Zeng, T.H.; Hofmann, M.; Burcombe, E.; Wei, J.; Jiang, R.; Kong, J.; Chen, Y. Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene oxide: Membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 6971–6980.
  35. Mashino, T.; Nishikawa, D.; Takahashi, K.; Usui, N.; Yamori, T.; Seki, M.; Endo, T.; Mochizuki, M. Antibacterial and antiproliferative activity of cationic fullerene derivatives. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2003, 13, 4395–4397.
  36. Aryaei, A.; Jayatissa, A.H.; Jayasuriya, A.C. The effect of graphene substrate on osteoblast cell adhesion and proliferation. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2014, 102, 3282–3290.
  37. Lobo, A.O.; Antunes, E.; Machado, A.; Pacheco-Soares, C.; Trava-Airoldi, V.; Corat, E. Cell viability and adhesion on as grown multi-wall carbon nanotube films. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2008, 28, 264–269.
  38. Nayak, T.R.; Andersen, H.; Makam, V.S.; Khaw, C.; Bae, S.; Xu, X.; Ee, P.-L.R.; Ahn, J.-H.; Hong, B.H.; Pastorin, G.; et al. Graphene for controlled and accelerated osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 4670–4678.
  39. Baik, K.Y.; Park, S.Y.; Heo, K.; Lee, K.B.; Hong, S. Carbon nanotube monolayer cues for osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells. Small 2011, 7, 741–745.
  40. Rajesh, R.; Ravichandran, Y.D. Development of new graphene oxide incorporated tricomponent scaffolds with polysaccharides and hydroxyapatite and study of their osteoconductivity on MG-63 cell line for bone tissue engineering. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 41135–41143.
  41. Aversa, R.; Petrescu, R.V.; Apicella, A.; Petrescu, F.I. Nano-diamond hybrid materials for structural biomedical application. Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2016, 13, 34–41.
  42. Li, K.; Wang, C.; Yan, J.; Zhang, Q.; Dang, B.; Wang, Z.; Yao, Y.; Lin, K.; Guo, Z.; Bi, L.; et al. Evaluation of the osteogenesis and osseointegration of titanium alloys coated with graphene: An in vivo study. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–10.
  43. Pinto, A.M.; Goncalves, I.C.; Magalhaes, F.D. Graphene-based materials biocompatibility: A review. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2013, 111, 188–202.
  44. Wang, K.; Ruan, J.; Song, H.; Zhang, J.; Wo, Y.; Guo, S.; Cui, D. Biocompatibility of graphene oxide. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 1–8.
  45. Liao, C.; Li, Y.; Tjong, S.C. Graphene nanomaterials: Synthesis, biocompatibility, and cytotoxicity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3564.
  46. Zhang, X.; Wei, C.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, G.; He, Y.; Yi, C.; Wang, C.; Yu, D. Dose-dependent cytotoxicity induced by pristine graphene oxide nanosheets for potential bone tissue regeneration. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2020, 108, 614–624.
  47. Liao, K.-H.; Lin, Y.-S.; Macosko, C.W.; Haynes, C.L. Cytotoxicity of graphene oxide and graphene in human erythrocytes and skin fibroblasts. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2011, 3, 2607–2615.
  48. Turcheniuk, K.; Mochalin, V.N. Biomedical applications of nanodiamond. Nanotechnology 2017, 28, 252001–252028.
  49. Yu, S.-J.; Kang, M.-W.; Chang, H.-C.; Chen, K.-M.; Yu, Y.-C. Bright fluorescent nanodiamonds: No photobleaching and low cytotoxicity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 17604–17605.
  50. Paget, V.; Sergent, J.; Grall, R.; Altmeyer-Morel, S.; Girard, H.; Petit, T.; Gesset, C.; Mermoux, M.; Bergonzo, P.; Arnault, J.-C.; et al. Carboxylated nanodiamonds are neither cytotoxic nor genotoxic on liver, kidney, intestine and lung human cell lines. Nanotoxicology 2014, 8, 46–56.
  51. Sayes, C.M.; Fortner, J.D.; Guo, W.; Lyon, D.; Boyd, A.M.; Ausman, K.D.; Tao, Y.J.; Sitharaman, B.; Wilson, L.J.; Hughes, J.B.; et al. The differential cytotoxicity of water-soluble fullerenes. Nano Lett. 2004, 4, 1881–1887.
  52. Duch, M.C.; Budinger, G.S.; Liang, Y.T.; Soberanes, S.; Urich, D.; Chiarella, S.E.; Campochiaro, L.A.; Gonzalez, A.; Chandel, N.S.; Hersam, M.C.; et al. Minimizing oxidation and stable nanoscale dispersion improves the biocompatibility of graphene in the lung. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 5201–5207.
  53. Zhang, S.; Yang, K.; Feng, L.; Liu, Z. In vitro and in vivo behaviors of dextran functionalized graphene. Carbon 2011, 49, 4040–4049.
  54. Makharza, S.; Cirillo, G.; Bachmatiuk, A.; Ibrahim, I.; Ioannides, N.; Trzebicka, B.; Hampel, S.; Rümmeli, M.H. Graphene oxide-based drug delivery vehicles: Functionalization, characterization, and cytotoxicity evaluation. J. Nanopart. Res. 2013, 15, 1–26.
  55. Yang, K.; Hu, L.; Ma, X.; Ye, S.; Cheng, L.; Shi, X.; Li, C.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z. Multimodal imaging guided photothermal therapy using functionalized graphene nanosheets anchored with magnetic nanoparticles. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 1868–1872.
  56. Yang, K.; Gong, H.; Shi, X.; Wan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z. In vivo biodistribution and toxicology of functionalized nano-graphene oxide in mice after oral and intraperitoneal administration. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 2787–2795.
  57. Yang, K.; Li, Y.; Tan, X.; Peng, R.; Liu, Z. Behavior and toxicity of graphene and its functionalized derivatives in biological systems. Small 2013, 9, 1492–1503.
  58. Jacobsen, N.R.; Møller, P.; Clausen, P.A.; Saber, A.T.; Micheletti, C.; Jensen, K.A.; Wallin, H.; Vogel, U. Biodistribution of carbon nanotubes in animal models. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2017, 121, 30–43.
  59. Elgrabli, D.; Floriani, M.; Abella-Gallart, S.; Meunier, L.; Gamez, C.; Delalain, P.; Rogerieux, F.; Boczkowski, J.; Lacroix, G. Biodistribution and clearance of instilled carbon nanotubes in rat lung. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2008, 5, 1–13.
  60. Lam, C.-W.; James, J.T.; McCluskey, R.; Hunter, R.L. Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol. Sci. 2004, 77, 126–134.
  61. Pranno, N.; La Monaca, G.; Polimeni, A.; Sarto, M.S.; Uccelletti, D.; Bruni, E.; Cristalli, M.P.; Cavallini, D.; Vozza, I. Antibacterial activity against staphylococcus aureus of titanium surfaces coated with graphene nanoplatelets to prevent peri-implant diseases. an in-vitro pilot study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1568.
  62. Scarano, A.; Orsini, T.; Di Carlo, F.; Valbonetti, L.; Lorusso, F. Graphene-doped poly (methyl-methacrylate) (PMMA) implants: A micro-CT and histomorphometrical study in rabbits. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1441.
  63. Zhang, C.; Jiang, Z.; Zhao, L.; Liu, W.; Si, P.; Lan, J. Synthesis and characterization of multilayer graphene oxide on yttria-zirconia ceramics for dental implant. J. Mater. Res. 2020, 35, 2466–2477.
  64. Zhang, C.; Wang, F.; Jiang, Z.; Lan, J.; Zhao, L.; Si, P. Effect of graphene oxide on the mechanical, tribological, and biological properties of sintered 3Y–ZrO2/GO composite ceramics for dental implants. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 6940–6946.
  65. Zhang, L.; Zhou, Q.; Song, W.; Wu, K.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y. Dual-functionalized graphene oxide based siRNA delivery system for implant surface biomodification with enhanced osteogenesis. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 34722–34735.
  66. Qian, W.; Qiu, J.; Liu, X. Minocycline hydrochloride-loaded graphene oxide films on implant abutments for peri-implantitis treatment in beagle dogs. J. Periodontol. 2020, 91, 792–799.
  67. Li, Q.; Wang, Z. Involvement of FAK/P38 signaling pathways in mediating the enhanced osteogenesis induced by nano-graphene oxide modification on titanium implant surface. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020, 15, 4659–4676.
  68. La, W.-G.; Jin, M.; Park, S.; Yoon, H.-H.; Jeong, G.-J.; Bhang, S.H.; Park, H.; Char, K.; Kim, B.-S. Delivery of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and substance P using graphene oxide for bone regeneration. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014, 9, 107–116.
  69. Ouyang, L.; Deng, Y.; Yang, L.; Shi, X.; Dong, T.; Tai, Y.; Yang, W.; Chen, Z.G. Graphene-oxide-decorated microporous polyetheretherketone with superior antibacterial capability and in vitro osteogenesis for orthopedic implant. Macromol. Biosci. 2018, 18, 1800036.
  70. Lee, J.J.; Shin, Y.C.; Song, S.J.; Cha, J.M.; Hong, S.W.; Lim, Y.-J.; Jeong, S.J.; Han, D.-W.; Kim, B. Dicalcium phosphate coated with graphene synergistically increases osteogenic differentiation in vitro. Coatings 2018, 8, 13.
  71. Ren, N.; Li, J.; Qiu, J.; Yan, M.; Liu, H.; Ji, D.; Huang, J.; Yu, J.; Liu, H. Growth and accelerated differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells on graphene-oxide-coated titanate with dexamethasone on surface of titanium implants. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, 525–535.
  72. Jung, H.S.; Lee, T.; Kwon, I.K.; Kim, H.S.; Hahn, S.K.; Lee, C.S. Surface modification of multipass caliber-rolled Ti alloy with dexamethasone-loaded graphene for dental applications. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 9598–9607.
  73. Bai, Y.; Bai, Y.; Gao, J.; Ma, W.; Su, J.; Jia, R. Preparation and characterization of reduced graphene oxide/fluorhydroxyapatite composites for medical implants. J. Alloy. Compd. 2016, 688, 657–667.
  74. Li, X.; Lin, K.; Wang, Z. Enhanced growth and osteogenic differentiation of MC3T3-E1 cells on Ti6Al4V alloys modified with reduced graphene oxide. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 14430–14437.
  75. Khajuria, D.K.; Kumar, V.B.; Gigi, D.; Gedanken, A.; Karasik, D. Accelerated bone regeneration by nitrogen-doped carbon dots functionalized with hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 19373–19385.
  76. Lu, Y.; Li, L.; Li, M.; Lin, Z.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yin, Q.; Xia, H.; Han, G. Zero-dimensional carbon dots enhance bone regeneration, osteosarcoma ablation, and clinical bacterial eradication. Bioconjug. Chem. 2018, 29, 2982–2993.
  77. Kaya, C.; Singh, I.; Boccaccini, A.R. Multi-walled carbon nanotube-reinforced hydroxyapatite layers on Ti6Al4V medical implants by electrophoretic deposition (EPD). Adv. Eng. Mater. 2008, 10, 131–138.
  78. Sivaraj, D.; Vijayalakshmi, K. Novel synthesis of bioactive hydroxyapatite/f-multiwalled carbon nanotube composite coating on 316L SS implant for substantial corrosion resistance and antibacterial activity. J. Alloy. Compd. 2019, 777, 1340–1346.
  79. Sivaraj, D.; Vijayalakshmi, K.; Ganeshkumar, A.; Rajaram, R. Tailoring Cu substituted hydroxyapatite/functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotube composite coating on 316L SS implant for enhanced corrosion resistance, antibacterial and bioactive properties. Int. J. Pharm. 2020, 590, 119946–119957.
  80. Martinelli, N.M.; Ribeiro, M.J.G.; Ricci, R.; Marques, M.A.; Lobo, A.O.; Marciano, F.R. In vitro osteogenesis stimulation via nano-hydroxyapatite/carbon nanotube thin films on biomedical stainless steel. Materials 2018, 11, 1555.
  81. Ivanova, L.; Popov, C.; Kolev, I.; Shivachev, B.; Karadjov, J.; Tarassov, M.; Kulisch, W.; Reithmaier, J.; Apostolova, M. Nanocrystalline diamond containing hydrogels and coatings for acceleration of osteogenesis. Diam. Relat. Mater. 2011, 20, 165–169.
  82. Choi, S.; Noh, S.H.; Lim, C.O.; Kim, H.-J.; Jo, H.-S.; Min, J.S.; Park, K.; Kim, S.E. Icariin-functionalized nanodiamonds to enhance osteogenic capacity in vitro. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 2071.
  83. Gong, H.; Anasori, B.; Dennison, C.R.; Wang, K.; Kumbur, E.C.; Strich, R.; Zhou, J.G. Fabrication, biodegradation behavior and cytotoxicity of Mg-nanodiamond composites for implant application. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2015, 26, 110–118.
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 425
Revisions: 6 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Sep 2021