Polymer nanocomposites (PNCs) are known for being an effective method to impart materials with exceptional properties that cannot be achieved by the individual components on their own. Utilizing the interfaces between the two phases of nanoscale compounds with high specific surface areas is advantageous for creating composites that incorporate nanofillers. The primary difficulty with nanocomposites lies in managing the interfacial interactions between the two phases. Polymer nanocomposites have gained significant research attention in recent years because of their promising potential in various electric, magnetic, optical, and biological applications. Over conventional materials, polymeric nanocomposites provide several advantages, such as light weighting, flexibility, processing simplicity, and low cost of the finished product. Biomedical applications have become a top study area among the disciplines due to the significance of medical technology, which has raised the criteria for biomedical materials. Demand for new materials with specific properties is high. Biomedical polymer-silicate nanocomposites hold great potential for advancing biomedical applications, including diagnostic and therapeutic devices, tissue regeneration, drug delivery systems, and various biotechnologies inspired by biology but with limited direct ties to biomedicine. A deep understanding of polymer-nanoparticle interactions is essential to regulate the structure-property relationships of materials, ensuring they function effectively within the chemical, physical, and biological limitations imposed by their intended applications. This review compiles the latest published strategies for designing and developing polymer-silicate nanocomposites, including clay-based silicate nanoparticles and bioactive glass nanoparticles, for various biological applications. Emerging application areas are being explored, and recent advancements in biotechnological and biomedical nanocomposites are highlighted.

Keywords:Nanocomposites, polymer, silicates, clay, biopolymer, mechanical properties, miomedical applications

1. Ray SS. Polylactide-based bionanocomposites: a promising class of hybrid materials. Acc Chem Res. 2012;45(10):1710–1720. doi:10.1021/ar3000376. 2. Liff SM, Kumar N, McKinley GH. High-performance elastomeric nanocomposites via solvent-exchange processing. Nat Mater. 2007;6(1):76–83. doi:10.1038/nmat1798. 3. Gaharwar AK, Dammu SA, Canter JM, Wu CJ, Schmidt G. Highly extensible, tough, and elastomeric nanocomposite hydrogels from poly (ethylene glycol) and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. Biomacromol. 2011;12(5):1641–1650. doi:10.1021/bm200027z. 4. Paul DR, Robeson LM. Polymer nanotechnology: nanocomposites. Polymer. 2008;49(15):3187–3204. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2008.04.017. 5. Goenka S, Sant V, Sant S. Graphene-based nanomaterials for drug delivery and tissue engineering. J Control Release. 2014;173:75–88. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.10.017. 6. Mitragotri S, Lahann J. Physical approaches to biomaterial design. Nat Mater. 2009;8:15–23. doi:10.1038/nmat2344. 7. Satarkar NS, Biswal D, Hilt JZ. Hydrogel nanocomposites: a review of applications as remote controlled biomaterials. Soft Mater. 2010;6(11):2364–2371. doi:10.1039/B925218P. 8. Lee C, Wei X, Kysar JW, Hone J. Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene. Sci. 2008;321(5887):385–388. doi:10.1126/science.1157996. 9. Vaia R, Baur J. Adaptive composites. Sci. 2008;319(5862):420–421. doi:10.1126/science.1152931. 10. Dundigalla A, Lin‐Gibson S, Ferreiro V, Malwitz MM, Schmidt G. Unusual multilayered structures in poly (ethylene oxide)/laponite nanocomposite films. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2005;26(3):143–149. doi:10.1002/marc.200400489. 11. Williams DF. On the nature of biomaterials. Biomater. 2009;30(30):5897–5909. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.027. 12. Huebsch N, Mooney DJ. Inspiration and application in the evolution of biomaterials. Nat. 2009;462(7272):426–432. doi:10.1038/nature08601. 13. Hench LL, Polak JM. Third-generation biomedical materials. Sci. 2002;295(5557):1014–1017. doi:10.1126/science.1067404. 14. Webber MJ, Khan OF, Sydlik SA, Tang BC, Langer R. A perspective on the clinical translation of scaffolds for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43:641–656. doi:10.1007/s10439-014-1104-7. 15. Peppas NA, Hilt JZ, Khademhosseini A, Langer R. Hydrogels in biology and medicine: from molecular principles to bionanotechnology. Adv Mater. 2006;18(11):1345–1360. doi:10.1002/adma.200501612. 16. Hirst AR, Escuder B, Miravet JF, Smith DK. High‐tech applications of self‐assembling supramolecular nanostructured gel‐phase materials: from regenerative medicine to electronic devices. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2008;47(42):8002–8018. doi:10.1002/anie.200800022. 17. Stuart MA, Huck WT, Genzer J, Müller M, Ober C, Stamm M, et al. Emerging applications of stimuli-responsive polymer materials. Nat Mater. 2010;9(2):101–113. doi:10.1038/nmat2614. 18. Kohane DS, Langer R. Polymeric biomaterials in tissue engineering. Pediatr Res. 2008;63:487–491. doi:10.1203/01.pdr.0000305937.26105.e7. 19. Fratzl P, Weinkamer R. Nature’s hierarchical materials. Prog Mater Sci. 2007;52(8):1263–1334. doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2007.06.001. 20. Gao H, Ji B, Jäger IL, Arzt E, Fratzl P. Materials become insensitive to flaws at nanoscale: lessons from nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(10):5597–5600. doi:10.1073/pnas.0631609100. 21. Tang Z, Kotov NA, Magonov S, Ozturk B. Nanostructured artificial nacre. Nat Mater. 2003;2(6):413–418. doi:10.1038/nmat906. 22. Weiner S, Wagner HD. The material bone: structure-mechanical function relations. Ann Rev Mater Sci. 1998;28(1):271–298. doi:10.1146/annurev.matsci.28.1.271. 23. Wagner HD. Paving the way to stronger materials. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007;2:742–744. doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.401. 24. Vaia RA, Wagner HD. Framework for nanocomposites. Mater Today. 2004;7(11):32–37. doi:10.1016/S1369-7021(04)00506-1. 25. Okada A, Usuki A. Twenty years of polymer‐clay nanocomposites. Macromol Mater Eng. 2006;291(12):1449–1476. doi:10.1002/mame.200600260. 26. Vaia RA, Giannelis EP. Polymer nanocomposites: status and opportunities. MRS Bull. 2001;26(5):394–401. doi:10.1557/mrs2001.93. 27. Faucheu J, Gauthier C, Chazeau L, Cavaille JY, Mellon V, Lami EB. Miniemulsion polymerization for synthesis of structured clay/polymer nanocomposites: short review and recent advances. Polymer. 2010;51(1):6–17. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2009.11.044. 28. Xu W, Raychowdhury S, Jiang DD, Retsos H, Giannelis EP. Dramatic Improvements in Toughness in Poly (lactide‐co‐glycolide) Nanocomposites. Small. 2008;4(5):662–669. doi:10.1002/smll.200701231. 29. Lee JH, Park TG, Park HS, Lee DS, Lee YK, Yoon SC, et al. Thermal and mechanical characteristics of poly (L-lactic acid) nanocomposite scaffold. Biomater. 2003;24(16):2773–2778. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00080-2. 30. Lee YH, Lee JH, An IG, Kim C, Lee DS, Lee YK, et al. Electrospun dual-porosity structure and biodegradation morphology of Montmorillonite reinforced PLLA nanocomposite scaffolds. Biomater. 2005;26(16):3165–3172. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.08.018. 31. Tsivintzelis I, Marras SI, Zuburtikudis I, Panayiotou C. Porous poly (l-lactic acid) nanocomposite scaffolds prepared by phase inversion using supercritical CO2 as antisolvent. Polymer. 2007;48(21):6311–6318. doi:10.1016/j.polymer.2007.08.021. 32. Ozkoc G, Kemaloglu S, Quaedflieg M. Production of poly (lactic acid)/organoclay nanocomposite scaffolds by microcompounding and polymer/particle leaching. Polymer Compos. 2010;31(4):674–683. doi:10.1002/pc.20846. 33. Krikorian V, Pochan DJ. Poly (L-lactic acid)/layered silicate nanocomposite: fabrication, characterization, and properties. Chem Mater. 2003;15(22):4317–4324. doi:10.1021/cm034369+. 34. Zhuang H, Zheng JP, Gao H, De Yao K. In vitro biodegradation and biocompatibility of gelatin/montmorillonite-chitosan intercalated nanocomposite. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18:951–957. doi:10.1007/s10856-006-0093-y. 35. Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff HM, Wen MC, Singh A, Brenner N, Gambino R, Pernodet N, et al. The effect of organo clay and adsorbed FeO3 nanoparticles on cells cultured on ethylene vinyl acetate substrates and fibers. Biomater. 2009;30(1):8–18. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.09.015. 36. Xu R, Manias E, Snyder AJ, Runt J. New biomedical poly (urethane urea)− layered silicate nanocomposites. Macromol. 2001;34(2):337–339. doi:10.1021/ma0013657. 37. Xu R, Manias E, Snyder AJ, Runt J. Low permeability biomedical polyurethane nanocomposites. J Biomed Mater. 2003;64(1):114–119. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.10377. 38. Ray SS, Yamada K, Okamoto M, Ueda K. Polylactide-layered silicate nanocomposite: a novel biodegradable material. Nano Letters. 2002;2(10):1093–1096. doi:10.1021/nl0202152. 39. Yang M, Zhang Z, Hahn C, Laroche G, King MW, Guidoin R. Totally implantable artificial hearts and left ventricular assist devices: selecting impermeable polycarbonate urethane to manufacture ventricles. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;48(1):13–23. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(1999)48:1<13::AID-JBM4>3.0.CO;2-4. 40. Haraguchi K, Takehisa T. Nanocomposite hydrogels: A unique organic–inorganic network structure with extraordinary mechanical, optical, and swelling/de‐swelling properties. Adv Mater. 2002;14(16):1120–1124. doi:10.1002/1521-4095(20020816)14:16<1120::AID-ADMA1120>3.0.CO;2-9. 41. Haraguchi K, Takehisa T, Ebato M. Control of cell cultivation and cell sheet detachment on the surface of polymer/clay nanocomposite hydrogels. Biomacromol. 2006;7(11):3267–3275. doi:10.1021/bm060549b. 42. Schmidt G, Nakatani AI, Butler PD, Karim A, Han CC. Shear orientation of viscoelastic polymer− clay solutions probed by flow birefringence and SANS. Macromol. 2000;33(20):7219–7222. doi:10.1021/ma9918811. 43. Haraguchi K, Li H-J. Mechanical properties and structure of polymer− clay nanocomposite gels with high clay content. Macromol. 2006;39(5):1898–1905. doi:10.1021/ma052468y. 44. Haraguchi K, Farnworth R, Ohbayashi A, Takehisa T. Compositional effects on mechanical properties of nanocomposite hydrogels composed of poly (N, N-dimethylacrylamide) and clay. Macromol. 2003;36(15):5732–5741. doi:10.1021/ma034366i. 45. Haraguchi K, Takehisa T, Fan S. Effects of clay content on the properties of nanocomposite hydrogels composed of poly (N-isopropylacrylamide) and clay. Macromol. 2002;35(27):10162–10171. doi:10.1021/ma021301r. 46. Gaharwar AK, Schexnailder P, Kaul V, Akkus O, Zakharov D, Seifert S, et al. Highly extensible bio‐nanocomposite films with direction‐dependent properties. Adv Funct Mater. 2010;20(3):429–436. doi:10.1002/adfm.200901606. 47. Jin Q, Schexnailder P, Gaharwar AK, Schmidt G. Silicate cross‐linked bio‐nanocomposite hydrogels from PEO and chitosan. Macromol Biosci. 2009;9(10):1028–1035. doi:10.1002/mabi.200900080. 48. Haraguchi K, Li HJ, Matsuda K, Takehisa T, Elliott E. Mechanism of forming organic/inorganic network structures during in-situ free-radical polymerization in PNIPA− clay nanocomposite hydrogels. Macromol. 2005;38(8):3482–3490. doi:10.1021/ma047431c. 49. Loizou E, Butler P, Porcar L, Kesselman E, Talmon Y, Dundigalla A, et al. Large scale structures in nanocomposite hydrogels. Macromol. 2005;38(6):2047–2049. 50. Harris JM. Polyethylene Glycol Chemistry: Biotechnical and Biomedical Applications. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press; 1992. 1-12. 51. Schexnailder P, Loizou E, Porcar L, Butler P, Schmidt G. Heterogeneity in nanocomposite hydrogels from poly (ethylene oxide) cross-linked with silicate nanoparticles. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2009;11(15):2760–2766. doi:10.1039/B820452G. 52. Yano K, Usuki A, Okada A, Kurauchi T, Kamigaito O. Synthesis and properties of polyimide–clay hybrid. J Polym Sci A Polym Chem. . 1993;31(10):2493–2498. doi:10.1002/pola.1993.080311009. 53. Cypes SH, Saltzman WM, Giannelis EP. Organosilicate-polymer drug delivery systems: controlled release and enhanced mechanical properties. J Control Release. 2003;90(2):163–169. doi:10.1016/S0168-3659(03)00133-0. 54. Wu CJ, Schmidt G. Thermosensitive and dissolution properties in nanocomposite polymer hydrogels. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2009;30(17):1492–1497. doi:10.1002/marc.200900163. 55. Lee WF, Chen YC. Effect of bentonite on the physical properties and drug‐release behaviour of poly (AA‐co‐PEGMEA)/bentonite nanocomposite hydrogels for mucoadhesive. J Appl Polym Sci. 2004;91(5):2934–2941. doi:10.1002/app.13499. 56. Takahashi T, Yamada Y, Kataoka K, Nagasaki Y. Preparation of a novel PEG–clay hybrid as a DDS material: Dispersion stability and sustained release profiles. J Control Release. 2005;107(3):408–416. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2005.03.031. 57. Misra SK, Valappil SP, Roy I, Boccaccini AR. Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)/inorganic phase composites for tissue engineering applications. Biomacromol. 2006;7(8):2249–2258. doi:10.1021/bm060317c. 58. Carlisle EM, Alpenfels WF. A silicon requirement for normal growth of cartilage in culture. Fed Proc. 1980;39(3):787. 59. Schwarz K. A bound form of silicon in glycosaminoglycans and polyuronides. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1973;70(5):1608–1612. doi:10.1073/pnas.70.5.1608. 60. Schwarz K, Milne DB. Growth-promoting effects of silicon in rats. Nat. 1972;239:333–334. doi:10.1038/239333a0. 61. Hench LL. Genetic design of bioactive glass. J Euro Ceram Soc. 2009;29(7):1257–1265. doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2008.08.002. 62. Vogel M, Voigt C, Gross UM, Müller-Mai CM. In vivo comparison of bioactive glass particles in rabbits. Biomater. 2001;22(4):357–362. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00191-5. 63. Valerio P, Pereira MM, Goes AM, Leite MF. The effect of ionic products from bioactive glass dissolution on osteoblast proliferation and collagen production. Biomater. 2004;25(15):2941–2948. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.086. 64. Xynos ID, Edgar AJ, Buttery LD, Hench LL, Polak JM. Gene‐expression profiling of human osteoblasts following treatment with the ionic products of Bioglass® 45S5 dissolution. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;55(2):151–157. doi:10.1002/1097-4636(200105)55:2<151::AID-JBM1001>3.0.CO;2-D. 65. Jones JR, Ehrenfried LM, Hench LL. Optimising bioactive glass scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomater. 2006;27(7):964–973. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.017. 66. Mansur HS, Costa HS. Nanostructured poly (vinyl alcohol)/bioactive glass and poly (vinyl alcohol)/chitosan/bioactive glass hybrid scaffolds for biomedical applications. Chem Eng J. 2008;137(1):72–83. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2007.09.036. 67. Blaker JJ, Gough JE, Maquet V, Notingher I, Boccaccini AR. In vitro evaluation of novel bioactive composites based on Bioglass®‐filled polylactide foams for bone tissue engineering scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res. 2003;67(4):1401–1411. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.20055. 68. Verrier S, Blaker JJ, Maquet V, Hench LL, Boccaccini AR. PDLLA/Bioglass® composites for soft-tissue and hard-tissue engineering: an in vitro cell biology assessment. Biomater. 2004;25(15):3013–3021. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.081. 69. Day RM, Boccaccini AR, Shurey S, Roether JA, Forbes A, Hench LL, et al. Assessment of polyglycolic acid mesh and bioactive glass for soft-tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomater. 2004;25(27):5857–5866. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.043. 70. TJ W. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomater. 2000;21:1803–1810. 71. Misra SK, Ansari T, Mohn D, Valappil SP, Brunner TJ, Stark WJ, et al. Effect of nanoparticulate bioactive glass particles on bioactivity and cytocompatibility of poly (3-hydroxybutyrate) composites. J Royal Soc Interface. 2010;7(44):453–465. doi:10.1098/rsif.2009.0255. 72. Misra SK, Mohn D, Brunner TJ, Stark WJ, Philip SE, Roy I, et al. Comparison of nanoscale and microscale bioactive glass on the properties of P (3HB)/Bioglass® composites. Biomater. 2008;29(12):1750–1761. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.12.040. 73. Kotela I, Podporska J, Soltysiak E, Konsztowicz KJ, Blazewicz M. Polymer nanocomposites for bone tissue substitutes. Ceram Int. 2009;35(6):2475–2480. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2009.02.016. 74. Peter M, Binulal NS, Soumya S, Nair SV, Furuike T, Tamura H, et al. Nanocomposite scaffolds of bioactive glass ceramic nanoparticles disseminated chitosan matrix for tissue engineering applications. Carbohydr Polym. 2010;79(2):284–289. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.08.001. 75. Peter M, Binulal NS, Nair SV, Selvamurugan N, Tamura H, Jayakumar R. Novel biodegradable chitosan–gelatin/nano-bioactive glass ceramic composite scaffolds for alveolar bone tissue engineering. Chem Eng J. 2010;158(2):353–361. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2010.02.003. 76. Lee EJ, Shin DS, Kim HE, Kim HW, Koh YH, Jang JH. Membrane of hybrid chitosan–silica xerogel for guided bone regeneration. Biomater. 2009;30(5):743–750. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.10.025. 77. Heinemann S, Heinemann C, Bernhardt R, Reinstorf A, Nies B, Meyer M, et al. Bioactive silica–collagen composite xerogels modified by calcium phosphate phases with adjustable mechanical properties for bone replacement. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(6):1979–1990. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2009.02.029. 78. Ehrlich H, Janussen D, Simon P, Bazhenov VV, Shapkin NP, Erler C, et al. Nanostructural Organization of Naturally Occurring Composites--Part II: Silica-Chitin-Based Biocomposites. J Nanomater. 2008;1–8. doi:10.1155/2008/670235. 79. Zhu H, Shen J, Feng X, Zhang H, Guo Y, Chen J. Fabrication and characterization of bioactive silk fibroin/wollastonite composite scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng. 2010;30(1):132–140. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2009.09.009. 80. Peter M, Kumar PT, Binulal NS, Nair SV, Tamura H, Jayakumar R. Development of novel α-chitin/nanobioactive glass ceramic composite scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. Carbohydr Polym. 2009;78(4):926–931. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.07.016. 81. Balazs AC, Emrick T, Russell TP. Nanoparticle polymer composites: where two small worlds meet. Sci. 2006;314(5802):1107–1110. doi:10.1126/science.1130557. 82. Ray SS, Nandi SK, Dasgupta S. Enhanced bone regeneration using Antheraea mylitta silk fibroin and chitosan based scaffold: in-vivo and in-vitro study. Biomed Mater. 2023;18(5):055019. doi:10.1088/1748-605X/acee3c. 83. Winey KI, Vaia RA. Polymer nanocomposites. MRS Bull. 2007;32(4):314–322. doi:10.1557/mrs2007.229.