Drug-delivery nanoparticles for bone-tissue and dental applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of nanoparticles as biomaterials with applications in the biomedical field is growing every day. These nanomaterials can be used as contrast imaging agents, combination therapy agents, and targeted delivery systems in medicine and dentistry. Usually, nanoparticles are found as synthetic or natural organic materials, such as hydroxyapatite, polymers, and lipids. Besides that, they are could also be inorganic, for instance, metallic or metal-oxide-based particles. These inorganic nanoparticles could additionally present magnetic properties, such as superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. The use of nanoparticles as drug delivery agents has many advantages, for they help diminish toxicity effects in the body since the drug dose reduces significantly, increases drugs biocompatibility, and helps target drugs to specific organs. As targeted-delivery agents, one of the applications uses nanoparticles as drug delivery particles for bone-tissue to treat cancer, osteoporosis, bone diseases, and dental treatments such as periodontitis. Their application as drug delivery agents requires a good comprehension of the nanoparticle properties and composition, alongside their synthesis and drug attachment characteristics. Properties such as size, shape, core-shell designs, and magnetic characteristics can influence their behavior inside the human body and modify magnetic properties in the case of magnetic nanoparticles. Based on that, many different studies have modified the synthesis methods for these nanoparticles and developed composite systems for therapeutics delivery, adapting, and improving magnetic properties, shell-core designs, and particle size and nanosystems characteristics. This review presents the most recent studies that have been presented with different nanoparticle types and structures for bone and dental drug delivery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".