Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 87–94 | Cite as

Advances in Nanotechnology for the Treatment of Osteoporosis

  • Mikayla Barry
  • Hannah Pearce
  • Lauren Cross
  • Marco Tatullo
  • Akhilesh K. GaharwarEmail author
Regenerative Biology and Medicine in Osteoporosis (T Webster, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Regenerative Biology and Medicine in Osteoporosis


Osteoporosis is a degenerative bone disease commonly related to aging. With an increase in life expectancies worldwide, the prevalence of the disease is expected to rise. Current clinical therapeutic treatments are not able to offer long-term solutions to counter the bone mass loss and the increased risk of fractures, which are the primary characteristics of the disease. However, the combination of bioactive nanomaterials within a biomaterial scaffold shows promise for the development of a localized, long-term treatment for those affected by osteoporosis. This review summarizes the unique characteristics of engineered nanoparticles that render them applicable for bone regeneration and recaps the current body of knowledge on nanomaterials with potential for osteoporosis treatment and bone regeneration. Specifically, we highlight new developments that are shaping this emerging field and evaluate applications of recently developed nanomaterials for osteoporosis treatment. Finally, we will identify promising new research directions in nanotechnology for bone regeneration.


Nanotechnology Osteoporosis Bioactive nanomaterials Bone regeneration 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Mikayla Barry, Hannah Pearce, Lauren Cross, Marco Tatullo, and Akhilesh K. Gaharwar declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Felsenberg D, Silman A, Lunt M, Armbrecht G, Ismail A, Finn J, et al. Incidence of vertebral fracture in Europe: results from the European prospective osteoporosis study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:716–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnell O, Kanis J. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1726–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mackey PA, Whitaker MD. Osteoporosis: a therapeutic update. J Nurs Pract. 2015;11:1011–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrlich P, Lanyon L. Mechanical strain and bone cell function: a review. Osteoporos Int. 2002;13:688–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parfitt AM. Trabecular bone architecture in the pathogenesis and prevention of fracture. Am J Med. 1987;82:68–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riggs BL, Khosla S, Melton LJ. A unitary model for involutional osteoporosis: estrogen deficiency causes both type I and type II osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and contributes to bone loss in aging men. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13:763–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindsay R, Nieves J, Formica C, Henneman E, Woelfert L, Shen V, et al. Randomised controlled study of effect of parathyroid hormone on vertebral-bone mass and fracture incidence among postmenopausal women on oestrogen with osteoporosis. Lancet. 1997;350:550–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Francis R. The effects of testosterone on osteoporosis in men. Clin Endocrinol. 1999;50:411–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zallone A. Direct and indirect estrogen actions on osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1068:173–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manolagas SC. From estrogen-centric to aging and oxidative stress: a revised perspective of the pathogenesis of osteoporosis. Endocr Rev. 2010;31:266–300.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bilezikian JP. Efficacy of bisphosphonates in reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Am J Med. 2009;122:S14–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberman UA, Weiss SR, Bröll J, Minne HW, Quan H, Bell NH, et al. Effect of oral alendronate on bone mineral density and the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1437–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lozano-Calderon SA, Colman MW, Raskin KA, Hornicek FJ, Gebhardt M. Use of bisphosphonates in orthopedic surgery: pearls and pitfalls. Orthop Clin N Am. 2014;45:403–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmidt GA, Horner KE, McDanel DL, Ross MB, Moores KG. Risks and benefits of long-term bisphosphonate therapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010;67:994–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.•
    Alghamdi HS, Bosco R, Both SK, Iafisco M, Leeuwenburgh SC, Jansen JA, et al. Synergistic effects of bisphosphonate and calcium phosphate nanoparticles on peri-implant bone responses in osteoporotic rats. Biomaterials. 2014;35:5482–90. Nanoparticles are utilized on the surface of an implant to concurrently promote osteoblast activity while also decreasing osteoclast activity.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.••
    Bosco R, Iafisco M, Tampieri A, Jansen JA, Leeuwenburgh SC, van den Beucken JJ. Hydroxyapatite nanocrystals functionalized with alendronate as bioactive components for bone implant coatings to decrease osteoclastic activity. Appl Surf Sci. 2015;328:516–24. This study highlights the use of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles as not only an osteoconductive material but also as a delivery vehicle for a drug to decrease osteoclast activity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diab DL, Watts NB. Bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2012;41:487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodan GA, Martin TJ. Therapeutic approaches to bone diseases. Science. 2000;289:1508–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ong KL, Villarraga ML, Lau E, Carreon LY, Kurtz SM, Glassman SD. Off-label use of bone morphogenetic proteins in the United States using administrative data. Spine. 2010;35:1794–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J. 2011;11:471–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lad SP, Nathan JK, Boakye M. Trends in the use of bone morphogenetic protein as a substitute to autologous iliac crest bone grafting for spinal fusion procedures in the United States. Spine. 2011;36:E274–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ehnert S, Jian Z, Pscherer S, Freude T, Dooley S, Kolk A, et al. Transforming growth factor b1 inhibits bone morphogenic protein (BMP)-2 and BMP-7 signaling via upregulation of Ski-related novel protein N (SnoN): possible mechanism for the failure of BMP therapy? BMC Med. 2012;10:101–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karunaratne DN. Nanotechnology in medicine. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka. 2010;35:149–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaharwar AK, Peppas NA, Khademhosseini A. Nanocomposite hydrogels for biomedical applications. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111:441–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rawat M, Singh D, Saraf S, Saraf S. Nanocarriers: promising vehicle for bioactive drugs. Biol Pharm Bull. 2006;29:1790–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carrow JK, Gaharwar AK. Bioinspired polymeric nanocomposites for regenerative medicine. Macromol Chem Phys. 2015;216:248–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kerativitayanan P, Carrow JK, Gaharwar AK. Nanomaterials for engineering stem cell responses. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4:1600–27.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tran N, Webster TJ. Increased osteoblast functions in the presence of hydroxyapatite-coated iron oxide nanoparticles. Acta Biomater. 2011;7:1298–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang L, Webster TJ. Nanotechnology and nanomaterials: promises for improved tissue regeneration. Nano Today. 2009;4:66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Webste T. Nanophase ceramics: the future orthopedic and dental implant material. In: Ying J, editor. Advances in chemical engineering, vol. 27. New York: Academic Press; 2001. p. 125–66.Google Scholar
  31. 31.••
    Fricain JC, Schlaubitz S, Le Visage C, Arnault I, Derkaoui SM, Siadous R, et al. A nano-hydroxyapatite–pullulan/dextran polysaccharide composite macroporous material for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2013;34:2947–59. When tested in several in vivo models, the composite scaffold induces high mineralization as well as maintains incorporated growth factors.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.•
    Xu A, Liu X, Gao X, Deng F, Deng Y, Wei S. Enhancement of osteogenesis on micro/nano-topographical carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone–nanohydroxyapatite biocomposite. Mater Sci Eng C. 2015;48:592–8. By incorporating nanohydroxyapatite into the composite, stem cell osteo-differentiation, mineralization, and interaction with the composite are increased.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chimene D, Alge DL, Gaharwar AK. Two‐dimensional nanomaterials for biomedical applications: emerging trends and future prospects. Adv Mater. 2015;27:7261–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gaharwar AK, Dammu SA, Canter JM, Wu C-J, Schmidt G. Highly extensible, tough, and elastomeric nanocomposite hydrogels from poly (ethylene glycol) and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules. 2011;12:1641–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hu Y, Cai K, Luo Z, Jandt KD. Layer‐by‐layer assembly of β‐estradiol loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles on titanium substrates and its implication for bone homeostasis. Adv Mater. 2010;22:4146–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sowjanya J, Singh J, Mohita T, Sarvanan S, Moorthi A, Srinivasan N, et al. Biocomposite scaffolds containing chitosan/alginate/nano-silica for bone tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 2013;109:294–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tripathi A, Saravanan S, Pattnaik S, Moorthi A, Partridge NC, Selvamurugan N. Bio-composite scaffolds containing chitosan/nano-hydroxyapatite/nano-copper–zinc for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2012;50:294–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kang G, Wang Y, Liu J, Wu J, Zhao M, Li G, et al. Development of three-component conjugates: to get nano-globes with porous surfaces, high in vivo anti-osteoporosis activity and minimal side effects. J Mater Chem. 2012;22:21740–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.•
    Cao L, Wang J, Hou J, Xing W, Liu C. Vascularization and bone regeneration in a critical sized defect using 2-N, 6-O-sulfated chitosan nanoparticles incorporating BMP-2. Biomaterials. 2014;35:684–98. Demonstrates ability of nanoparticle system to deliver BMP-2 for short and long-term treatment to improve bone regeneration as well as promote vascularization.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ignjatović N, Ajduković Z, Savić V, Najman S, Mihailović D, Vasiljević P, et al. Nanoparticles of cobalt-substituted hydroxyapatite in regeneration of mandibular osteoporotic bones. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24:343–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.••
    Weitzmann MN, Ha S-W, Vikulina T, Roser-Page S, Lee J-K, Beck GR. Bioactive silica nanoparticles reverse age-associated bone loss in mice. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2015;11:959–67. Successful in vivo mice studies show potential for administration of silica nanoparticles to counteract age-related bone loss.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.•
    Kim T-H, Singh RK, Kang MS, Kim J-H, Kim H-W. Inhibition of osteoclastogenesis through siRNA delivery with tunable mesoporous bioactive nanocarriers. Acta Biomater. 2015. siRNA is incorporated into bioglass nanospheres, which are biocompatible and biodegradable, and successfully delivered to inhibit osteoclast activity.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Saravanan S, Sameera D, Moorthi A, Selvamurugan N. Chitosan scaffolds containing chicken feather keratin nanoparticles for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2013;62:481–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gaharwar AK, Mihaila SM, Swami A, Patel A, Sant S, Reis RL, et al. Bioactive silicate nanoplatelets for osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Adv Mater. 2013;25:3329–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.•
    Xavier JR, Thakur T, Desai P, Jaiswal MK, Sears N, Cosgriff-Hernandez E, et al. Bioactive nanoengineered hydrogels for bone tissue engineering: a growth-factor-free approach. ACS Nano. 2015;9:3109–18. Incorporation of two-dimensional silicate nanoparticles not only increases the structural properties of the scaffold but provides a growth-factor free approach to stimulating osteogenic differentiation.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu Y, Lu Y, Tian X, Cui G, Zhao Y, Yang Q, et al. Segmental bone regeneration using an rhBMP-2-loaded gelatin/nanohydroxyapatite/fibrin scaffold in a rabbit model. Biomaterials. 2009;30:6276–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    El-Fiqi A, Kim H-W. Mesoporous bioactive nanocarriers in electrospun biopolymer fibrous scaffolds designed for sequential drug delivery. RSC Adv. 2014;4:4444–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.••
    Kang MS, Kim J-H, Singh RK, Jang J-H, Kim H-W. Therapeutic-designed electrospun bone scaffolds: Mesoporous bioactive nanocarriers in hollow fiber composites to sequentially deliver dual growth factors. Acta Biomater. 2015;16:103–16. A nanocomposite system is designed to deliver two different growth factors at two different rates; the nanocarriers allowed for sustained release of the later acting growth factor.Google Scholar
  49. 49.•
    Crowder SW, Prasai D, Rath R, Balikov DA, Bae H, Bolotin KI, et al. Three-dimensional graphene foams promote osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Nanoscale. 2013;5:4171–6. Graphene is novel two-dimensional material and its incorporation into a three-dimensional matrix not only improves the scaffolds mechanical properties but also enhances stem cell osteogenic differentiation.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thakur T, Xavier JR, Cross L, Jaiswal MK, Mondragon E, Kaunas R, et al. Photocrosslinkable and elastomeric hydrogels for bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016;104(4):879–888.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kerativitayanan P, Gaharwar AK. Elastomeric and mechanically stiff nanocomposites from poly (glycerol sebacate) and bioactive nanosilicates. Acta Biomater. 2015;26:34–44.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gaharwar AK, Mukundan S, Karaca E, Dolatshahi-Pirouz A, Patel A, Rangarajan K, et al. Nanoclay-enriched poly (ɛ-caprolactone) electrospun scaffolds for osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A. 2014;20(15–16):2088–2101.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Saifullah B, Arulselvan P, El Zowalaty ME, Fakurazi S, Webster TJ, Geilich BM, et al. Development of a biocompatible nanodelivery system for tuberculosis drugs based on isoniazid-Mg/Al layered double hydroxide. Int J Nanomedicine. 2014;9:4749.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tran PA, Sarin L, Hurt RH, Webster TJ. Opportunities for nanotechnology-enabled bioactive bone implants. J Mater Chem. 2009;19:2653–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikayla Barry
    • 1
  • Hannah Pearce
    • 1
  • Lauren Cross
    • 1
  • Marco Tatullo
    • 2
    • 3
  • Akhilesh K. Gaharwar
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Maxillofacial UnitCalabrodental ClinicCrotoneItaly
  3. 3.Regenerative Medicine SectionTecnologica Research InstituteCrotoneItaly
  4. 4.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  5. 5.Center for Remote Health Technologies and SystemsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations