Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Editorial
Narrative Review
Original Research Article
Perspective Article
Short Communication
Symposium Proceedings
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Editorial
Narrative Review
Original Research Article
Perspective Article
Short Communication
Symposium Proceedings
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Narrative Review
2026
:2;
8
doi:
10.25259/JHRE_2_2026

Nanomaterial-enhanced regenerative therapies in endodontics: Current evidence, clinical applications, and future directions

, , ,
1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

*Corresponding author: Rhythm Bains, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, King George’s Medical University, Shahmeena Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. docrhythm77@gmail.com

Received: , Accepted: ,
© 2026 Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Journal of Healthcare Research and Education.
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Jain M, Bains R, Verma P, Yadav RK. Nanomaterial-enhanced regenerative therapies in endodontics: Current evidence, clinical applications, and future directions. J Healthc Res Educ. 2026;2:8 doi: 10.25259/JHRE_2_2026

Abstract

Nanomaterials are revolutionizing regenerative endodontics by providing advanced bioactive platforms that enhance cellular behavior, support tissue repair, and promote predictable pulp–dentin regeneration. Their unique nanoscale features enhance stem cell adhesion, differentiation, angiogenesis, and antimicrobial activity, resulting in more favorable outcomes than those of conventional materials. This review summarizes the current evidence on nanoparticles, nanofibrous scaffolds, and nanocomposites, highlighting their mechanisms of action, clinical applications, and potential to optimize regenerative protocols. It also addresses safety considerations, translational challenges, and emerging innovations, including smart nanocarriers and patient-specific scaffolds. Nanotechnology continues to advance the field toward consistent, biologically functional regeneration.

Keywords

Nanoparticles
Nanotechnology
Nano scaffolds
Regenerative endodontics

INTRDUCTION

Traditional endodontic treatments focus on eliminating infection, shaping and disinfecting the root canal system, and preserving tooth structure. Although clinically successful, these procedures ultimately result in devitalized teeth that lack the biological, immune, and sensory functions of healthy pulp tissue.[1] This limitation has led to the evolution of regenerative endodontics, a biologically driven approach aimed at restoring a functional pulp– dentin complex capable of continued development, vitality, and long-term resilience.[2]

Nanotechnology has emerged as a powerful tool in this field, offering solutions to many of the challenges associated with the predictable regeneration of pulp. Nanomaterials— engineered structures with dimensions under 100 nanometers—exhibit unique surface properties, high reactivity, and biomimetic architecture that are not achievable with conventional materials.[3] These characteristics enable nanoscale platforms to influence the behavior of dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) by enhancing cellular adhesion, proliferation, migration, and differentiation, all of which are essential for successful tissue regeneration.[4]

In addition to modulating cellular responses, nanomaterials play a crucial role in promoting angiogenesis, a key requirement for establishing a functional vascular network within regenerated pulp tissue.[5] Their ability to serve as carriers for controlled release of growth factors, antibiotics, and anti-inflammatory agents further supports an optimal healing environment. Many nanomaterials also possess inherent antimicrobial activity, aiding in the management of persistent pathogens commonly associated with endodontic failure.[6]Together, these advantages position nanotechnology as a transformative contributor to modern regenerative endodontic protocols.

This review highlights the scope and applications of nanotechnology-based materials and techniques in endodontics and demonstrates how they are enabling future advances.

Nanomaterials used in regenerative endodontics

Nanomaterials used in regenerative endodontics include Metallic nanoparticles (e.g., silver, gold, zinc oxide)[7] Bioactive glass nanoparticles[5] Polymeric nanoparticles [e.g., chitosan, polylactic acid (PLA)[8] Nanofibrous scaffolds (e.g., collagen, gelatin, polycaprolactone (PCL)][9], and carbon-based nanomaterials [e.g., graphene oxide, carbon nanotubes(CNTs)].[10] Each class offers distinct advantages, including antimicrobial capabilities, support for cell growth, and the ability to serve as vehicles for biomolecule delivery.

Metallic and metal oxide nanoparticles

Metallic nanoparticles are ultra-small particles (typically 1–100 nm) composed of pure metals such as silver (AgNPs), gold (AuNPs), or metal oxides like zinc oxide (ZnO NPs) and titanium dioxide (TiO2 NPs). Silver, gold, zinc oxide, and titanium dioxide nanoparticles exhibit potent antibacterial activity and penetrate deeply into dentinal tubules.[11] They disrupt bacterial membranes, prevent biofilm formation, and enhance dentin bonding. These properties make them highly effective for managing persistent endodontic infections and improving overall disinfection outcomes.[12]

Metallic and metal oxide nanoparticles are used in endodontics as irrigant additives for deeper disinfection, as intracanal medicaments to enhance antimicrobial action, and as coatings on instruments or materials to provide long-lasting antibacterial effects.[13] They are also incorporated into bioactive nanofibrous scaffolds in regenerative endodontics to support cell growth and prevent infection.[14]

Bioactive glass nanoparticles

Bioactive glass nanoparticles are nanoscale silica-based particles (20–100 nm) characterized by high surface reactivity and strong regenerative potential. These nanoparticles release calcium and silicon ions in a controlled manner, thereby stimulating odontoblastic differentiation, promoting mineral deposition, and forming a hydroxyapatite layer that mimics natural dentin.[3] Nano-bioactive glass supports pulp– dentin regeneration by releasing calcium and silicon ions in a controlled manner. These ions stimulate odontoblastic differentiation, enhance mineral deposition, and promote the formation of a biomimetic dentin matrix. This bioactivity makes nano-bioactive glass a valuable component in regenerative endodontic strategies.[15]

Their antibacterial and anti-inflammatory effects further support a favorable healing environment. In endodontics, bioactive glass nanoparticles can be incorporated into intracanal medicaments, regenerative scaffolds, hydrogels, pulp-capping materials, adhesives, and sealers, or used as surface coatings to enhance mineralization, improve dentin bonding, and support pulp–dentin regeneration.[16]

Polymeric nanoparticles

Polymeric nanoparticles are nanoscale carriers fabricated from biocompatible and biodegradable polymers, such as chitosan, PLA, and hybrid polymer systems. They are designed for the controlled delivery of drugs and bioactive molecules.[16]Chitosan nanoparticles, derived from natural polysaccharides, exhibit inherent antimicrobial and bioadhesive properties.[17]while PLA nanoparticles provide sustained and controlled drug release due to their slow biodegradation. Hybrid polymeric nanoparticles, combining natural and/or synthetic polymers, enhance stability, mechanical strength, and multifunctional drug-release performance.[3]

These systems encapsulate therapeutic agents and enable sustained, targeted release, thereby prolonging antimicrobial action and supporting regenerative processes.[18] In endodontics, polymeric nanoparticles are incorporated into intracanal medicaments, scaffolds, hydrogels, and irrigant formulations to enhance disinfection, promote healing, and improve regenerative outcomes.[19]

Nanofibrous scaffolds

Nanofibrous scaffolds are ultra-thin fiber structures (typically 50–500 nm in diameter) designed to mimic the architecture of the natural extracellular matrix (ECM), providing excellent cell adhesion, high surface area, and interconnected porosity that are essential for tissue regeneration.[10] Nanoparticles differ in that they exist as discrete nanoscale particles rather than forming a fibrous 3D structure. They are primarily used for targeted delivery and antimicrobial release rather than serving as physical scaffolds [Figure 1].[20]

Depiction of nanoparticle morphology compared to the porous network of nanofibrous scaffolds.
Figure 1: Depiction of nanoparticle morphology compared to the porous network of nanofibrous scaffolds.

They are primarily obtained via electrospinning, a technique that uses an electric field to draw polymer solutions—such as PCL, collagen, gelatin, chitosan, and guar gum—into nanoscale fibers; they can also be produced via self-assembly or phase separation.[21] These nanofibers create a biomimetic environment that supports stem cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation, while enabling controlled delivery of growth factors, drugs, or nanoparticles embedded within the fibers.[22]

In endodontics, nanofibrous scaffolds can be used as regenerative templates placed within the root canal, incorporated into hydrogels, loaded with antimicrobial or bioactive agents, or combined with stem cells to guide regeneration of the pulp– dentin complex and enhance healing outcomes.[23]

Carbon-based nanomaterials

Carbon-based nanomaterials are nanoscale structures composed primarily of carbon, including graphene oxide, CNTs, nanodiamonds, and fullerenes, recognized for their exceptional mechanical strength and stability.[24] These nanoparticles exert antibacterial effects through membrane interactions and the generation of reactive oxygen species, while also enhancing cell proliferation, mineralization, and tissue regeneration.[25]

In endodontics, they are incorporated into scaffolds, sealers, dentin adhesives, intracanal medicaments, and regenerative hydrogels to improve mechanical reinforcement, antibacterial efficacy, and bioactivity within the pulp–dentin complex.[26] Graphene oxide and CNTs, in particular, offer high drug-loading capacity, enhanced cell interactions, and scaffold reinforcement, supporting advanced regenerative endodontic and tissue engineering applications.[8]

MATERIAL & METHODS

Cellular interactions

Nanomaterials enhance cellular interactions primarily by mimicking the nanoscale architecture of the natural ECM. Their surface topography, characterized by nanoscale ridges, pores, and fiber-like structures, provides physical and biochemical cues that facilitate stem and progenitor cell adhesion, spreading, and intercellular communication.[27]These interactions promote key cellular processes, including proliferation, migration, and lineage-specific differentiation, which are essential for dentin–pulp tissue formation. Consequently, nanomaterial-based scaffolds exhibit improved biological performance and more organized tissue regeneration compared with conventional materials.[22]

Antimicrobial activity

Antimicrobial nanomaterials, such as silver and chitosan nanoparticles, exert their effects by directly interacting with bacterial cell membranes, leading to membrane disruption, metabolic interference, and bacterial cell death.[28] Importantly, these materials inhibit biofilm formation and penetrate dentinal tubules, enabling effective targeting of resistant pathogens such as Enterococcus faecalis.[29] While these properties significantly reduce bacterial load and the risk of reinfection, their antimicrobial efficacy has been mainly demonstrated under experimental conditions, necessitating cautious extrapolation to clinical scenarios.[14]

Drug and biomolecule delivery

Nanocarriers function as controlled-delivery systems that encapsulate antibiotics, growth factors (e.g., bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP)-, Transforming Growth Factor-β1 (TGF-β1) , and anti-inflammatory agents, enabling sustained and localized release within the root canal environment.[10] This controlled release minimizes premature degradation and ensures prolonged bioactivity, thereby supporting stem cell differentiation and modulating inflammation. Although these systems offer improved biological control compared with conventional delivery methods, variability in carrier design and release kinetics remains a challenge for clinical standardization.[30]

Scaffold formation

Nanofibrous and hydrogel-based scaffolds are designed to replicate the three-dimensional architecture of the ECM, providing a supportive framework for dental pulp stem cell attachment, migration, and organization.[31] Their interconnected porous structure facilitates nutrient diffusion, oxygen transport, and vascular ingrowth, while nanoscale fiber alignment supports appropriate cell orientation and differentiation [Figure 2].[32]These features collectively contribute to improved structural integration and functional tissue regeneration.

Nanofibrous and hydrogel scaffolds support dental pulp stem cell (DPSC) attachment and regeneration of pulp–dentin tissue.
Figure 2: Nanofibrous and hydrogel scaffolds support dental pulp stem cell (DPSC) attachment and regeneration of pulp–dentin tissue.

Stimulation of angiogenesis

Specific nanomaterials, including bioactive glass, silica nanoparticles, and nano-hydroxyapatite, promote angiogenesis by upregulating key pro-angiogenic mediators such as Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), Fibroblast Growth Factor-2 (FGF-2), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1), and Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1α (HIF-1α).[33,34] Enhanced expression of these factors stimulates endothelial cell migration, proliferation, and tubule formation, facilitating neovascularization within regenerating pulp tissue. This vascular network is critical for nutrient delivery, oxygenation, and long-term tissue viability; however, most supporting evidence is derived from in vitro and animal models.[35]

Nanotechnology in regenerative endodontics: evidence-based critical synthesis

Nanotechnology has emerged as a promising adjunct in regenerative endodontics, offering enhanced antimicrobial activity, improved cellular responses, and optimized scaffold performance [Table 1].[36-67] Over the past two decades,nanomaterial-based strategies have been extensively investigated for their potential to support pulp–dentin regeneration.[68] In vitro evidence consistently demonstrates superior antimicrobial efficacy, with most studies reporting 80– 99% bacterial reduction, particularly against E. faecalis, exceeding the effects of sodium hypochlorite or calcium hydroxide alone.[14] However, these results are derived from controlled laboratory environments and may not fully reflect the complex polymicrobial conditions present in clinical infections.

Table 1: Studies on nanomaterial-enhanced regenerative therapies in endodontics
Year Author Type of study Nanomaterial / Technology used
2008 Kishen et al.[36] In vitro study Nanoparticle-based antimicrobial system
2011 Galler et al.[37] In vitro study Nanofibrous Dental Pulp Stem Cells (DPSC). scaffolds
2012 Shrestha et al.[38] In vitro study Chitosan nanoparticles
2013 Bottino et al.[39] In vitro study Electrospun nanofibrous scaffolds
2013 Wu et al.[40] In vitro study Silver nanoparticles
2013 Ferreira et al.[41] Review Nanotechnology relevance
2014 Shrestha et al.[42] In vitro study Rose Bengal–chitosan nanoparticles
2014 Piva et al.[43] In vitro study Nanovesicle-functionalized scaffolds
2014 Albuquerque et al.[44] In vitro study Nanofibrous regenerative scaffolds
2016 Albuquerque et al.[45] Animal study Nanofiber-based pulp regeneration scaffolds
2016 Gathani et al.[46] Review Nanomaterials in regeneration
2017 Li et al.[47] In vitro study Nanostructured tissue-engineering scaffolds
2017 Lee et al.[48] Animal study Nanobioactive glass
2017 Fernando et al.[49] In vitro study Nano-bioactive glass
2018 Shrestha and Kishen[50] In vitro study Functionalized antimicrobial nanoparticles
2018 Mostafa et al.[51] In vitro study Calcium-silicate nanoparticles
2018 Shrestha and Kishen[52] Review Nanoparticle disinfection technologies
2019 Mandakhbayar et al.[53] In vitro study Nano-hydroxyapatite
2020 Balbinot et al.[54] In vitro study Bioactive glass nanoparticles
2021 Zhao et al.[55] In vitro study Nanostructured gelatin scaffolds
2021 Zhang et al.[56] Animal study Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (BMP-2).releasing nanoparticles
2022 Shen et al.[57] Animal study Mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN ± BMP-2)
2022 Ribeiro et al.[58] In vitro study Metal-oxide nanoparticles
2022 Shetty et al.[59] In vitro study Nano-drug delivery scaffolds
2022 Ozdemir et al.[60] Review Advances in nano-endodontics
2023 Desai et al.[61] Review Clinical translation of nanosystems
2023 Al Mosawi et al.[62] In vitro study Zinc oxide nanoparticles
2024 Talaat et al.[63] Animal study Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles (MSN) ± Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (BMP-2) scaffolds.
2024 Stojanov and Berlec[64] In vitro study Smart nano-bioactive hydrogels
2025 Hu et al.[65] In vitro study Nanocomposite hydrogels
2025 Silva et al.[66] In vitro study Nanodiamond-modified cements

Nanofibrous scaffolds, bioactive glass nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles, and growth-factor-releasing nanocarriers have shown enhanced cell adhesion, proliferation, and odontogenic differentiation compared with conventional scaffold materials.[69] While these findings indicate improved biological guidance, variability in nanoparticle composition, concentration, and experimental protocols limits direct comparison across studies. Collectively, in vitro investigations suggest stronger antibacterial effects[14], improved scaffold functionality[70], and controlled delivery of bioactive molecules[14]; nevertheless, translating these findings into clinical success remains uncertain.

Animal and in vivo studies provide supportive preclinical evidence, reporting improved vascularization, thicker dentin-like tissue formation, and regeneration success rates of 70–90%, exceeding those of conventional blood-clot-based protocols. Additional investigations demonstrate enhanced mineralized tissue quality and vascular organization[71],as well as improved structural stability.[72] Despite these encouraging results, animal models do not fully replicate the anatomical, immunological, and microbial complexity of human pulp–periapical tissues, and follow-up periods are often limited.

Specific preclinical studies further support these trends. Growth-factor–releasing nanofibers have been shown to increase alkaline phosphatase activity and accelerate dentin-like matrix formation.[39] Bioactive glass nanoparticles have demonstrated enhanced hydroxyapatite formation, increased dental pulp stem cell proliferation, and upregulation of odontogenic markers.[73] Nanofibrous scaffolds have also promoted greater mineralization and more predictable odontoblastic differentiation than traditional materials.[74]In vivo, nanofibrous and nanobioactive scaffolds have produced organized pulp-like tissue, enhanced vascularization, thicker dentin bridges, and improved root development compared with standard regenerative materials.[70,75]These findings align with systematic evidence indicating superior vascularized pulp–dentin complex formation using nanoengineered scaffolds across multiple animal models.[75]

Human clinical evidence remains scarce, with a lack of randomized controlled trials, standardized treatment protocols, and long-term outcome data. Consequently, claims of clinical superiority over conventional regenerative endodontic approaches should be interpreted cautiously. Further well-designed clinical studies addressing safety, reproducibility, cost-effectiveness, and regulatory feasibility are essential before routine clinical adoption can be recommended.

Antibacterial and bioactivity profiles

Extensive preclinical research highlights the antibacterial and bioactive potential of nanomaterials in endodontics. Silver nanoparticles demonstrate strong antimicrobial effects, with studies reporting >95% reduction of E. faecalis biofilms under experimental conditions.[75] Zinc oxide nanoparticles have shown complete inhibition of multispecies biofilms in root canal models, while chitosan-based nanoparticles— particularly rose Bengal–chitosan formulations—achieve significant biofilm disruption and dentinal tubule penetration.[76]However, most evidence derives from in vitro or ex vivo models, and clinical validation remains limited.

Beyond antimicrobial effects, several nanomaterials exhibit favorable bioactivity and cytocompatibility with DPSCs. Nanofibrous scaffolds and bioactive nanoparticles enhance DPSC adhesion, proliferation, mineral deposition, and upregulation of odontogenic markers such as Dentin Sialophosphoprotein (DSPP) and Dentin Matrix Protein-1 (DMP-1).[39,74] Overall, these materials support cell viability and differentiation[77] yet variability in formulations and the lack of robust long-term human data restrict definitive clinical conclusions.

Inference from systematic reviews

Systematic reviews consistently indicate that nanomaterials— particularly silver nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, and nanoengineered scaffolds—significantly enhance the antimicrobial and regenerative performance of endodontic therapies.[78,79] These materials show superior ability to disrupt resistant biofilms, penetrate dentinal tubules, and eliminate pathogens such as E. faecalis, while also demonstrating excellent biocompatibility with dental pulp stem cells.[14]Reviews further highlight that nanomaterials support mineral deposition, promote odontogenic differentiation, and improve overall tissue response, making them beneficial not only for disinfection but also for obturation and regenerative procedures.[80] Notably, many nanomaterials exhibit lower cytotoxicity compared with conventional agents, suggesting a safer and more biologically favorable profile. Despite these promising findings, systematic reviews emphasize the need for robust clinical trials to establish standardized protocols, determine optimal dosages, and validate long-term safety before widespread clinical implementation can be recommended.

Clinical applications

Nanoparticles as intracanal medicaments and irrigants

Nanoparticles, such as silver (AgNPs) and chitosan nanoparticles, are being investigated as effective intracanal medicaments due to their ability to penetrate dentinal tubules and eliminate resistant pathogens, such as E. faecalis.[14] Their nanoscale size allows access to areas where conventional agents such as sodium hypochlorite and calcium hydroxide are less effective.[40] Studies report higher antibacterial efficacy with comparatively lower cytotoxicity, making them promising in regenerative procedures and immature teeth where tissue preservation is essential.[42]

When incorporated into irrigants such as Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) and Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl), nanoparticles enhance smear layer removal, improve dentin cleanliness, and prolong antimicrobial activity.[81] By disrupting biofilms and preventing bacterial adhesion, nanoparticle-modified irrigants create a more favorable environment for pulp–dentin regeneration.[78]

Tissue engineering: nano-scaffolds and cell delivery

Nanotechnology has enhanced tissue engineering through the development of nanofibrous scaffolds that mimic the natural ECM. Scaffolds fabricated from PCL, collagen, gelatin, or their blends provide a favorable surface for stem cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation due to their nanoscale architecture and high surface-to-volume ratio.[82]Electrospinning is commonly used to produce uniform, functionalizable nanofibers capable of incorporating growth factors, bioactive agents, or even living stem cells for controlled delivery within the root canal space.[83]

Emerging strategies combine nanoscaffold hydrogels with biologically active matrices such as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), offering structural support alongside sustained cytokine and growth factor release. These hybrid systems enhance vascularization, cellular organization, and dentin– pulp regeneration compared with conventional scaffolds.[84]Overall, nanoengineered scaffolds provide a promising platform for functional pulp tissue regeneration in endodontics.

Drug, gene, and growth factor delivery

Nanoscale delivery systems play a pivotal role in regenerative endodontics by enabling controlled, localized, and sustained release of therapeutic agents, including drugs, proteins, and nucleic acids. Their small size and large surface area will allow them to deliver bioactive molecules directly into the root canal microenvironment, thereby maintaining therapeutic concentrations for extended periods.[85]

For instance, dexamethasone-loaded bioactive glass nanoparticles have been shown to significantly enhance odontoblastic differentiation by upregulating key markers, including DSPP and DMP-1, thereby demonstrating strong regenerative potential.[86] Similarly, chitosan–PLA electrospun nanofibers have been used to deliver BMPs in preclinical models, resulting in improved stem cell differentiation, enhanced mineral deposition, and more organized dentin–pulp tissue formation.[87] Through precise molecular delivery, these nanoengineered systems create a biologically favorable environment that accelerates healing and improves the predictability of pulp–dentin regeneration. Chitosan–PLA nanofibers have successfully delivered BMPs in preclinical models, enhancing tissue regeneration.[42]

Enhanced endodontic materials

Nanotechnology has facilitated the development of nanofilled sealers and obturation materials with improved mechanical strength, flow, radiopacity, and reduced microleakage. Incorporation of bioactive glass or silver nanoparticles into obturating materials may further reduce post-treatment bacterial persistence.[88]

Nanotechnology-enhanced materials demonstrate superior antibacterial efficacy against resistant biofilms, improved cell viability and differentiation, tunable mechanical properties, and the ability to deliver biologics in a sustained and targeted manner—addressing several limitations of conventional endodontic and regenerative protocols.[89]

Recent innovations include nanofiber-reinforced guttapercha, nanodiamond-modified cements, mesoporous silica nanoparticle (MSN)-based sealers, and nano-hydroxyapatite bioceramics, which enhance odontogenic potential and dentin bonding. Additionally, smart nanocarriers such as polymeric nanoparticles, liposomal systems, and growth factor–loaded MSNs enable personalized and controlled regenerative therapies.[90,91]

Nanoparticles in hydroxyapatite-based formulations for remineralization

Nanoparticles, particularly nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA), play a significant role in hydroxyapatite-based remineralization strategies due to their biomimetic structure and enhanced surface reactivity. Owing to their nanoscale size and high surface energy, nHA closely resembles biological apatite in dentin and enamel, enabling penetration into dentinal tubules and serving as nucleation sites for mineral deposition.[92]

Hydroxyapatite formation in these systems may occur through: (1) in situ biomimetic precipitation, where released calcium and phosphate ions form a carbonated apatite layer on demineralized dentin.[93] (2) pre-formed nHA deposition, where synthesized nanoparticles integrate into dentin via crystal growth and interlocking; and,[94] (3) ion-mediated apatite formation, commonly associated with bioactive glass or calcium silicate–based materials that induce secondary apatite formation at the dentin–material interface. Among these, biomimetic precipitation most closely replicates native dentin mineral.[95]

Incorporation of nHA into sealers, pastes, and scaffold systems enhances calcium–phosphate ion release, promotes dentinal tubule occlusion, improves microhardness, and strengthens interfacial bonding. Functionalized formulations combined with polymers, fluoride, or bioactive glass demonstrate improved remineralization kinetics and mechanical stability compared with conventional micron-sized hydroxyapatite.[96]

However, most supporting evidence is derived from in vitro and short-term in vivo studies. Variability in particle characteristics and formulations limits standardization, and long-term clinical data on durability and safety remain scarce. Further well-designed translational and clinical studies are required before routine endodontic application can be recommended.[97]

LIMITATIONS, SAFETY, AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Despite their promising regenerative potential, the clinical application of nanomaterials in endodontics is associated with several limitations and safety concerns. Potential cytotoxicity remains a key issue, as nanoparticle size, concentration, surface chemistry, and long-term accumulation can influence cellular responses and tissue compatibility. Although many toxicological concerns have been mitigated through optimized formulations, surface modifications, and biocompatible coatings, each newly developed nanomaterial requires rigorous, material-specific biocompatibility and toxicity assessment before clinical use.[98]

Translation of nanotechnology-based technologies into routine dental practice remains gradual, largely due to limited long-term human clinical data evaluating safety, efficacy, and biological stability. Furthermore, regulatory approval pathways for medical nanomaterials are complex and not yet fully standardized, with significant variability in regulatory requirements across different jurisdictions. This lack of harmonization poses additional challenges for widespread clinical adoption.[99]

Practical barriers also exist, including the need for specialised infrastructure, technical expertise, and stringent storage and handling protocols for nano-endodontic formulations. While increasing interdisciplinary collaboration and investment in translational research are facilitating progress, robust clinical trials, standardised manufacturing protocols, and clear regulatory guidelines are essential before nanomaterials can be routinely integrated into clinical endodontic practice.

Future perspectives

Several exciting developments are expected to shape the field, such as custom-made, patient-specific nanoscaffolds produced via three-dimensional bioprinting. Smart nanocarriers enabling “on-demand” drug or growth factor release in response to microenvironmental signals, integration of immune-modulatory nanomaterials for tailoring host responses, cell-free therapies using nanomaterial-induced endogenous cell recruitment, and large randomized controlled trials to compare performance and safety with established protocols. Sustained collaboration among material scientists, engineers, clinicians, and regulators is necessary to realize these advancements fully.[100]

Recent ongoing clinical trials and emerging nanomaterials are advancing nanomaterial-enhanced regenerative dental therapies, particularly in endodontics.[101] A key example is an active randomized controlled trial (NCT07121348) evaluating nanoscaffolds, such as mesoporous silica nanoparticles, hyaluronic acid nanoparticles, and pomegranate nanoparticles, alongside PRF for pulp regeneration in immature non-vital permanent teeth, assessing clinical and radiographic outcomes, including apical closure over 12 months.[102]

Ongoing trials

Most research remains preclinical, but human trials are emerging. The Tanta University trial (NCT07121348, active not recruiting) compares nanoscaffolds in 40 patients with necrotic immature incisors, targeting root development without systemic diseases interfering with healing. Preclinical studies support this, showing that nanoparticles, such as bioactive glass and tideglusib, promote hDPSC proliferation for pulp healing.[63]

Emerging nanomaterials

Bioactive glass nanoparticles (BG-NPs), often boron-modified or combined with dexamethasone, enhance odontogenic differentiation of hDPSCs and dentin regeneration by forming calcium-phosphate layers.[103]Chitosan nanoparticles with TGF-β1 boost Stem Cells from the Apical Papilla (SCAP) migration and differentiation, while mesoporous calcium silicate nanoparticles promote odontogenesis and apatite formation.[104]

Challenges in incorporating nanoparticles into routine endodontic therapy

Despite encouraging preclinical outcomes, several challenges currently limit the routine clinical integration of nanoparticle-based systems in endodontic therapy. One major barrier is the lack of standardized formulations and application protocols, as variations in nanoparticle size, concentration, surface modification, and delivery method can significantly influence biological performance and clinical outcomes.[105]

Clinical handling and delivery also pose challenges. Ensuring uniform dispersion of nanoparticles within the complex root canal anatomy, achieving controlled retention at the target site, and preventing unintended extrusion beyond the apex remain technically demanding, particularly in immature or anatomically complex teeth.[98]

From a biological and safety perspective, concerns persist regarding long-term tissue interactions, potential nanoparticle accumulation, and unpredictable host responses under inflammatory conditions. While short-term biocompatibility has been demonstrated for several systems, long-term human safety data are insufficient, necessitating cautious clinical adoption.[106]

Regulatory and economic constraints further hinder translation. The absence of harmonized regulatory guidelines for dental nanomaterials, coupled with high development and manufacturing costs, limits commercial availability and clinician access. Additionally, implementation requires specialized infrastructure, material handling protocols, and clinician training, which may not be feasible in all clinical settings.[106]

Collectively, these challenges highlight the need for robust clinical trials, standardized manufacturing and delivery systems, clear regulatory pathways, and cost-effective solutions before nanoparticle-based technologies can be reliably incorporated into routine endodontic practice.

CONCLUSION

Nanomaterial-enhanced regenerative endodontic therapies represent a paradigm shift from preservation of structure to authentic biological restoration of pulp-dentin vitality. Evidence from preclinical and early-stage clinical studies consistently demonstrates the superiority of nano-based protocols in cell viability, dentin formation, and clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, caution is required regarding long-term safety, regulatory compliance, and reproducibility of results. The coming decade promises even greater breakthroughs at the interface of nanotechnology, biology, and clinical dentistry.

Author contributions:

MJ: Design of the study, literature search, manuscript preparation; RB: Conceptualization, manuscript preparation; RY: Manuscript preparation, manuscript editing; PV: Manuscript editing and reviewing.

Ethical approval:

Institutional Review Board approval is not required.

Declaration of patient consent:

Patient's consent is not required as there are no patients in this study.

Conflicts of interest:

Dr. Rhythm Bains is on the Editorial Board of the journal.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:

The authors confirm that they have used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for language refinement and to improve the clarity of writing. No AI assistance was employed in the generation of scientific content, data analysis or interpretation.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

References

  1. , . A review of regenerative endodontics: current protocols and future directions. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017;51:S41-S51. doi: 10.17096/jiufd.53911
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , . Regenerative endodontic therapy: From laboratory bench to clinical practice. J Adv Res. 2025;72:229-263. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2024.07.001
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , . Use of nanoparticles in regenerative dentistry: a systematic review. Biomimetics. 2024;9:243. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics9040243
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , et al. Nanomaterials modulating the fate of dental-derived mesenchymal stem cells involved in oral tissue reconstruction: a systematic review. Int J Nanomedicine. 2023;18:5377-5406. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S418675
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , . Bioactive glass nanoparticles for tissue regeneration. ACS Omega. 2020;5:1034-1043. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c00180
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , et al. Nanoparticles in endodontics disinfection: state of the art. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14:1519. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14071519
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , , et al. Nanomaterials in dentistry: current applications and future scope. Nanomaterials. 2022;12:1676. doi: 10.3390/nano12101676
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , . Application of nanomaterials in endodontics. BME Front. 2024;5:0043. doi: 10.34133/bmef.0043
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , . Nanofibrous scaffolds for regenerative endodontics treatment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:1078453. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1078453
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , . The latest advances in the use of nanoparticles in endodontics. Appl Sci. 2024;14:7912. doi: 10.3390/app14177912
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , . The antibacterial effect and the incidence of postoperative pain after the application of nano-based intracanal medications during endodontic retreatment: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26:2155-2163. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04196
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , . Silver nanoparticles in endodontics: recent developments and applications. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46:e38. doi: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e38
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . Nanoparticles for antimicrobial purposes in endodontics: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016;58:1269-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.08.070
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , et al. Nanoparticles and their antibacterial application in endodontics. Antibiotics. 2023;12:1690. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12121690
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , . Mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles promote odontogenesis and neutralize pathophysiological acidic pH. Front Mater. 2020;7:241. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2020.00241
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , . Nanoparticles of bioactive glass enhance Biodentine bioactivity on dental pulp stem cells. Materials. 2021;14:2684. doi: 10.3390/ma14102684
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , , et al. The use of chitosan/PLA nanofibers by emulsion electrospinning for periodontal tissue engineering. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2018;46:419-430. doi: 10.1080/21691401.2018.1458233
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , . The role of chitosan in regenerative endodontics: a review of current advances and future directions. Cureus. 2025;11:1426-1429. doi: 10.46889/JDHOR.2024.5204
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. , . Chitosan nanoparticle applications in dentistry: a sustainable biopolymer. Front Chem. 2024;12:1362482. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2024.1362482
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. , . Nanofibrous tissue engineering scaffolds capable of growth factor delivery. Pharm Res. 2011;28:1273-1281. doi: 10.1007/s11095-011-0367-z
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , . Electrospun biomimetic nanofibrous scaffolds: a promising prospect for bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:9206. doi: 10.3390/ijms23169206
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , , , , et al. Biomimetic scaffolds for tissue engineering. Adv Funct Mater. 2012;22:3011-3024. doi: 10.1002/adfm.201103083
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. , . Nanofibrous scaffolds for dental and craniofacial applications. J Dent Res. 2012;91:227-234. doi: 10.1177/0022034511417441
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , , . A comprehensive review on electrospinning design, parameters and potential use of electrospun nanofibers in regenerative endodontics. Int J Dent Mater. 2020;2:37-44. doi: 10.37983/IJDM.2020.2202
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , . A narrative review on application of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles in endodontics. Heliyon. 2024;10:e34673. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34673
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. , . Nanotoxicity in endodontics: the lurking hazards of nanomedicine. J Educ Technol Health Sci. 2022;9:3. doi: 10.18231/j.jeths.2022.017
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , . Graphene-based materials in dental applications: antibacterial, biocompatible, and bone regenerative properties. Int J Biomater. 2023;2023:8803283. doi: 10.1155/2023/8803283
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. , . Biomimetic nanofibrous scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2011;32:9622-9629. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.09.009
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , , , , et al. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties of graphene oxide on Enterococcus faecalis. Antibiotics. 2020;9:692. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9100692
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. , , , . Towards a better understanding of the neuro-developmental role of autophagy in sickness and in health. Cell Stress. 2021;5:99-118. doi: 10.15698/cst2021.07.253
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. , , . Nanohydroxyapatite/natural polymer composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: a brief review of recent trend. Vitro Models. 2023;2:125-151. doi: 10.1007/s44164-023-00049-w
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. , , , , , , et al. Nanofiber scaffolds as drug delivery systems promoting wound healing. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15:1829. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15071829
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. , , , , , , et al. Hydrogels and dentin-pulp complex regeneration: from the benchtop to clinical translation. Polymers. 2020;12:2935. doi: 10.3390/polym12122935
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. , , , , , , et al. Insights into the angiogenic effects of nanomaterials: mechanisms involved and potential applications. J Nanobiotechnology. 2020;18:9. doi: 10.1186/s12951-019-0570-3
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. , , , , , . Nanotherapeutics for regeneration of degenerated tissue infected by bacteria through the multiple delivery of bioactive ions and growth factor with antibacterial/angiogenic and osteogenic/odontogenic capacity. Bioact Mater. 2021;6:123-136. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.07.010
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. , , , . An investigation on the antibacterial and antibiofilm efficacy of cationic nanoparticulates for root canal disinfection. J Endod. 2008;34:1515-1520. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.035
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. , , , . Scaffolds for dental pulp tissue engineering. Adv Dent Res. 2011;23:333-339. doi: 10.1177/0022034511405326
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. , . The effect of tissue inhibitors on the antibacterial activity of chitosan nanoparticles and photodynamic therapy. J Endod. 2012;38:1275-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.05.006
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. , , , , , , et al. Bioactive nanofibrous scaffolds for regenerative endodontics. J Dent Res. 2013;92:963-969. doi: 10.1177/0022034513505770
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. , , , , . Evaluation of the antibacterial efficacy of silver nanoparticles against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. J Endod. 2014;40:285-290. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.022
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. , , . Nanoparticles, nanotechnology and pulmonary nanotoxicology. Rev Port Pneumol. 2013;19:28-37. doi: 10.1016/j.rppneu.2012.09.003
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. , , . Photoactivated rose bengal functionalized chitosan nanoparticles produce antibacterial/ biofilm activity and stabilize dentin-collagen. Nanomedicine. 2014;10:491-501. doi: 10.1016/j.nano.201310.010
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. , , . Functionalized scaffolds to control dental pulp stem cell fate. J Endod. 2014;40:S33-S40. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.01.013
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. , , , , . Tissue-engineering-based strategies for regenerative endodontics. J Dent Res. 2014;93:1222-1231. doi: 10.1177/0022034514549809
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. , , , , , . Clinical perspective of electrospun nanofibers as a drug delivery strategy for regenerative endodontics. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2016;3:209-220. doi: 10.1007/s40496-016-0103-1
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. , . Scaffolds in regenerative endodontics: A review. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2016;13:379-386. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.192266
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. , , , , . Nanomaterials for craniofacial and dental tissue engineering. J Dent Res. 2017;96:725-732. doi: 10.1177/0022034517706678
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. , , . Bioactive glass-based nanocomposites for personalized dental tissue regeneration. Dent Mater J. 2016;35:710-720. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2015-428
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. , , , , , . Bioactive glass for dentin remineralization: a systematic review. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017;76:1369-1377. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.083
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. , , , . Bioactivity of photoactivated functionalized nanoparticles assessed in lipopolysaccharide-contaminated root canals in vivo. J Endod. 2018;44:104-110. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2017.08.021
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. , , , . Evaluation of tissue response of adult male Sprague-Dawley rats to an experimental calcium silicate based cement versus Angelus white MTA and Sinai white Portland cement. Al-Azhar Med J 2018 DOI:10.21608/0047693
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. . Nanoparticles for endodontic disinfection. Odontology. 2018;106:363-373. DOI:10.1007/s41894-018-0023-7
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. , , , . Evaluation of strontium-doped nanobioactive glass cement for dentin-pulp complex regeneration therapy. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019;5:6117-6126. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b01018
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. , , , , . Synthesis of sol-gel derived calcium silicate particles and development of a bioactive endodontic cement. Dent Mater. 2020;36:135-144. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.11.004
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. , , , , , . Human periodontal ligament stem cells transplanted with nanohydroxyapatite/chitosan/gelatin 3D porous scaffolds promote jaw bone regeneration in swine. Stem Cells Dev. 2021;30:548-559. doi: 10.1089/scd.2020.0204
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. , , , , , . RhBMP-2-loaded PLGA/titanium nanotube delivery system synergistically enhances osseointegration. ACS Omega. 2021;6:16364-16372. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c00851
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. , , , , , , et al. Cefazolin/ BMP-2-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles for the repair of open fractures with bone defects. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022:8385456. doi: 10.1155/2022/8385456
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. , , . Synergistic effects between metal nanoparticles and commercial antimicrobial agents: a review. ACS Appl Nano Mater. 2022;5:3030-3064. doi: 10.1021/acsanm.1c03891
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. , , . Nanoparticles incorporated in nanofibers using electrospinning: a novel nano-in-nano delivery system. J Control Release. 2022;350:421-434. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.08.035
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. , . Recent progress on the applications of nanomaterials and nano-characterization techniques in endodontics: a review. Materials. 2022;15:5109. doi: 10.3390/ma15155109
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. , , , , , , et al. Bioinspired membrane-coated nanosystems in cancer theranostics: a comprehensive review. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15:1677. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15061677
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. , , . Study of the antibacterial effects of the starch-based zinc oxide nanoparticles on methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from different clinical specimens. AIMS Microbiol. 2023;9:90-107. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023006
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. , , , , . Regenerative potential of mesoporous silica nanoparticles scaffold on dental pulp and root maturation in immature dog's teeth: a histologic and radiographic study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24:817. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04368-6
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. , . Smart bionanomaterials for treatment and diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. Nanotechnol Rev. 2024;13 doi: 10.1515/ntrev-2024-0057
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. , , , , , . Injectable laponite nanocomposite hydrogel with synergistic antibacterial and odontogenic activity for endodontic regeneration. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2025;253:114745. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2025.114745
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. , , , , , , et al. In vitro evaluation of the enhancement of glass ionomer cement features by using chitosan and nanodiamond. Braz Dent J. 2025;36:e246215. doi: 10.1590/0103-644020246215
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. , , , , , , et al. Nanomaterials application in endodontics. Materials. 2021;14:5296. doi: 10.3390/ma14185296
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. , , , , , . Nanotherapeutics for regeneration of degenerated tissue infected by bacteria through multiple delivery of bioactive ions and growth factor. Bioact Mater. 2021;6:123-136. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.07.010
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. , , , . Nanofibrous scaffolds for regenerative endodontics treatment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:1078453. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1078453
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. , , , , . Nanoparticles of bioactive glass enhance Biodentine bioactivity on dental pulp stem cells. Materials. 2021;14:2684. doi: 10.3390/ma14102684
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. , , , . Nanoparticle technology and its implications in endodontics: a review. Biomater Res. 2020;24:21. doi: 10.1186/s40824-020-00198-z
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. , , . Effect of bioactive glass nanoparticles and nano-hydroxyapatite coated by chitosan on odontogenic differentiation and proliferation of human dental pulp stem cells. Egypt Dent J 2022 doi: 10.21608/edj.2022.139190.2113
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  73. , , , , , , et al. The odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells on nanofibrous poly(L-lactic acid) scaffolds in vitro and in vivo. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:3856-3863. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.20
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. , , , , . Scaffolds for dentin-pulp complex regeneration. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60:7. doi: 10.3390/medicina60010007
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. , , , , . Advances in scaffolds used for pulp-dentine complex tissue engineering: a narrative review. Int Endod J. 2022;55:1277-1316. doi: 10.1111/iej.13826
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. , , , , , , et al. Zinc oxide nanoparticles: a review on its applications in dentistry. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:917990. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.917990
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. , , , , , , et al. Nanomaterials modulating the fate of dental-derived mesenchymal stem cells involved in oral tissue reconstruction: a systematic review. Int J Nanomedicine. 2023;18:5377-5406. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S418675
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. , , , , , , et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of silver nanoparticles as root canal irrigants: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2021;10:1152. doi: 10.3390/jcm10061152
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. , . A systematic review on the applications of nanoparticles in dentistry. Int J Health Sci. 2022;6:4864-4876. doi: 10.53730/ijhs.v6nS6.11472
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  80. , , , , . Evaluation of the antibacterial efficacy of silver nanoparticles against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. J Endod. 2014;40:285-290. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.022
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. , , , , . Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of nanoparticle-mediated photodynamic therapy versus photodynamic therapy and conventional disinfection in endodontics. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2023;26:502-513. doi: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_305_23
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  82. , , . Electrospinning of polymeric nanofibers for tissue engineering applications: a review. Tissue Eng. 2006;12:1197-1211. doi: 10.1089/ten.2006.12.1197
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. , , , , , , et al. Nanohydroxyapatite in dentistry: a comprehensive review. Saudi Dent J. 2023;35:741-752. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.05.018
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. , , , , . Electrospun nanofibers for improved angiogenesis: promises for tissue engineering applications. Nanomaterials. 2020;10:1609. doi: 10.3390/nano10081609
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. , , , . Local drug delivery for regeneration and disinfection in endodontics: a narrative review. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025;28:119-125. doi: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_801_24
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. , , , , , , et al. Delivery of dexamethasone from bioactive nanofiber matrices stimulates odontogenesis of human dental pulp cells. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:2557-2567. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S97846
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. , , . Chitosan for gene delivery and orthopedic tissue engineering applications. Molecules. 2013;18:5611-5647. doi: 10.3390/molecules18055611
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. , , , . Silver nanoparticles and their therapeutic applications in endodontics: a narrative review. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15:715. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15030715
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. , , , , . Nanoarchitectonics-based materials as a promising strategy in the treatment of endodontic infections. Pharmaceutics. 2024;16:759. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics16060759
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. , , , , . Synthesis of nanodiamond reinforced dental composite resins and their mechanical properties. Dent Mater. 2013;29:e255-e263. doi: 10.36106/ijsr/5211491
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  91. , . Emerging applications of nanotechnology in dentistry. Dent J. 2023;11:266. doi: 10.3390/dj11110266
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. . Calcium orthophosphates in nature, biology and medicine. Materials. 2009;2:399-498. doi: 10.3390/ma2020399
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  93. , , , . Remineralization potential of nano-hydroxyapatite on initial enamel lesions: an in vitro study. Caries Res. 2011;45:460-468. doi: 10.1159/000331207
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. , . Guided tissue remineralisation of partially demineralised human dentine. Biomaterials. 2008;29:1127-1137. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.001
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. , , , , , , et al. A review of the bioactivity of hydraulic calcium silicate cements. J Dent. 2014;42:517-533. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.015
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. , , , . The effects of the incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite on physico-chemical properties of calcium-enriched mixed cement. J Dent (Shiraz). 2025;26:177-185. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2024.101837.2319
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  97. , , , , , , et al. Development of remineralizing antibacterial dental materials. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:2525-2539. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.03.030
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. , , , , , , et al. Advanced tools for the safety assessment of nanomaterials. Nat Nanotechnol. 2018;13:537-543. doi: 10.1038/s41565-018-0185-0
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. , , . Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials in the EU. Chem Ing Tech. 2016;88:437-444. doi: 10.1002/cite.201600076
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  100. , , , . Nanomedicine: principles, properties, and regulatory issues. Front Chem. 2018;6:360. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00360
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. , , , . Advancing dentistry through bioprinting: personalization of oral tissues. J Funct Biomater. 2023;14:530. doi: 10.3390/jfb14100530
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. . Effect of different nanoscaffolds on pulp regeneration in non-vital immature permanent teeth (randomized clinical trial) [clinical trial registration] ClinicalTrials.gov.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. , , . Chitosan: a versatile semi-synthetic polymer in biomedical applications. Prog Polym Sci. 2011;36:981-1014. doi: 10.1016/J.PROGPOLYMSCI.2011.02.001
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  104. , , , , . Advances in nanotechnology for restorative dentistry. Materials. 2015;8:717-731. doi: 10.3390/ma8020717
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. . Progress in nanomedicine: approved and investigational nanodrugs. P T. 2017;42:742-55.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. , , , , , , et al. Bioactive materials in endodontics. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5:475-494. doi: 10.1586/17434440.5.4.475
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
204

PDF downloads
55
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections

Suggested read for related articles: