The Evolution and Frontiers of Piezoelectric Materials for Bone and Cartilage Regeneration Research

Abstract

Bone and cartilage injuries are highly prevalent and arise from diverse pathogenic mechanisms, placing a substantial burden on patients’ health, quality of life, and on families and society. Piezoelectric materials, inspired by tissue engineering concepts and the intrinsic piezoelectricity of human tissues, can harness the physiological electrical microenvironment to enhance tissue regeneration. To better understand the development of this field, we employed data from the Web of Science Core Citation (WoSCC) database as the core and primary focus for conducting bibliometric research and applied tools including Bibliometrix, Origin, Python, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer. A total of 388 publications from 46 countries were identified, with China, the United States, and Iran being the leading contributors. Fangwei Qi had the highest publication output, while C. Ribeiro had the highest cocitation frequency. The most productive institutions were Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the Fourth Military Medical University, and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces published the largest number of articles. The most frequent keywords included “bone regeneration,” “osteogenic differentiation,” “piezoelectric,” “scaffolds,” and “hydroxyapatite.” Furthermore, we employed Scopus as a validation database to cross-verify the publication trends and keyword hotspots derived from WoSCC, with the results demonstrating a high degree of consistency. These findings reveal that research on the role of piezoelectric materials in bone and cartilage regeneration is expanding rapidly, highlighting the current hotspots and emerging trends and providing valuable insights to guide future studies in this area.

Impact Statement

We performed a comprehensive cross-validation of our bibliometric trends using the Scopus database, in addition to our in-depth analysis of the Web of Science Core Citation database. We are confident that this addition has substantially strengthened the robustness and analytical depth of our study, particularly in annual growth patterns and keyword consensus. This study mapped research frontiers and developmental trends in piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration and offered meaningful guidance and references for future investigations.

Keywords

piezoelectric materials bone regeneration cartilage regeneration bibliometric analysis literature review

Introduction

Bone and cartilage injuries have a high prevalence worldwide,^1–3 with diverse pathogenic mechanisms (including trauma, infection, tumors, and impaired blood supply),^4,5 which not only cause functional and psychosocial disorders in patients^6,7 but also impose a heavy burden on society.⁸ With the increase in life expectancy and the continuous aging of the population worldwide, the prevalence of these conditions will persist.⁹

Piezoelectricity naturally exists in the human body.^10,11 Previous studies have confirmed that bones exhibit intrinsic piezoelectric properties, where pressure applied to bones generates electrical signals. The electrical signals in bones originate from collagen and the basic organic component of natural bones.^12–14 Additionally, ion channels in bone cells may be triggered by mechanical stress and the resulting piezoelectric signals, leading to hyperpolarization (in negative charge regions) or depolarization (in positive charge regions) of the plasma membrane,^15,16 facilitating the osteogenic differentiation of bone mesenchymal stem cells and terminal bone matrix deposition.^17–21 The piezoelectricity of bone is fundamental to bone growth and fracture regeneration.^22–24 Research on cartilage regeneration indicates that exogenous electrical stimulation can restore the impaired bioelectrical microenvironment within injured cartilage and has been proven to induce mesenchymal stem cells to differentiate into chondrocytes in vitro without essential growth factors, benefiting cartilage tissue repair.^25,26

In recent years, tissue engineering, applying concepts from biology and engineering, has brought new hope for tissue injury repair.^27–29 Among these, piezoelectric materials taking advantage of the physiological electrical microenvironment of target tissues can self-generate electricity under mechanical stress, eliminating the reliance on hazardous batteries and thereby making them promising options for self-sustained electrical stimulation devices.^30,31 Currently, piezoelectric smart materials have been widely used in various biomedical applications and demonstrated promising roles in tissue engineering, particularly for bone and cartilage repair.^32–34

Bibliometrics is an important tool for quantitative and visual analysis of the changes in specific study area.^35–37 It enables systematic analysis of literature and evaluation of information pertaining to institutions, authors, regions, publications, and keywords, thereby offering an integrated perspective on prevailing trends, emerging focal points, and future trajectories within the discipline. This approach provides researchers with comprehensive insights into the intellectual framework and evolving research trends in a specific field.^38–40 While numerous studies have explored the application of piezoelectric materials in bone and cartilage repair, few have specifically conducted a bibliometric analysis in this area.

This study employed the Web of Science Core Citation (WoSCC) database alongside tools such as CiteSpace, VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, Origin, and Python to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research in piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. The analysis encompassed dimensions including countries, institutions, scholars, journals, published outputs, and keywords. To enhance the robustness of our findings, we performed cross-validation against the Scopus database for publication trends and keyword analysis. This study delineates the research frontiers and developmental trajectory of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage repair, providing instructive reference directions for subsequent investigations.

Methods

Data source and search strategy

The Web of Science serves as a robust source for bibliometric studies, offering broad disciplinary coverage, detailed indexing, and diverse analytical indicators that support research evaluation, enabling researchers to identify research hotspots and trends in their respective fields. We obtained publication data related to piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration from the WoSCC database for bibliometric analysis. Publication data concerning piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration were also obtained from the Scopus database for cross-validation, thereby enhancing the reliability and robustness of the analytical results.

The raw data retrieved from both WoSCC and Scopus included all citations without filtering out self-citations. In the subsequent analyses of influential authors, institutions, and countries, the total citation counts (including self-citations) as provided by the databases were used to fully reflect their overall academic impact within the field.

To ensure data accuracy and minimize potential bias from database updates, all data retrieval, including searches and downloads, was performed on August 1, 2025. The retrieval strategy was defined as follows: Index = The SCIE of WoSCC, (TIAB= (piezoelectric* OR “piezo-electric*” OR “electrically active”)) AND (TIAB= (bone OR osteo* OR “skelet*” OR cartilage OR chondro* OR “articular cartil*” OR meniscus*)) AND (TIAB= (regenerate* OR repair* OR healing)). The publication time span was from January 1, 2000, to July 31, 2025. The document types included Article and Review. The language was English.

A total of 388 publications were included from the WoSCC database for bibliometric analysis, and a total of 141 publications were included from the Scopus database for cross-validation, with complete records and citation information exported in text format for further processing.

Bibliometric analysis and visualization

Bibliographic data were automatically extracted and processed to examine research collaboration across countries, institutions, authors, and journals, while also mapping keyword evolution and cocitation patterns. VOSviewer (Version 1.6.18, Leiden University, The Netherlands) was used to construct collaboration networks and clustering maps. Python (Version 3.13.5) was applied to analyze annual publication outputs while Origin (version 2025b) was applied to analyze global cooperation map. The Bibliometrix R package (version 4.0.0) was used for network analysis, including coauthorship analysis between countries, profiling the annual publication volume of the top 10 authors, generating a three-field plot to visualize the relationships among institutions, journals, and countries; identifying the top 10 journals by annual publication count; and performing frequency, trend, and cluster analyses on author keywords and Keywords Plus. The dual-map overlay of journals contributed to publications was performed using CiteSpace (version 6.3.1). The 30 keywords exhibiting the most pronounced citation bursts, along with keyword clustering maps, were examined through CiteSpace. Annual publication output, the leading 10 countries, 9 most productive authors, 10 institutions, and 12 journals with the highest publication counts were assessed. In addition, the 10 most frequently cocited papers, the 10 most cited cocited authors, and the 10 most common keywords were counted, sorted, and visualized using the pivot table and chart functions in Microsoft Excel 2019.

Multidatabase validation

To meet the current requirements for robustness in bibliometrics, we cross-validated the publication trend and keywords derived from WoSCC using the Scopus database. The workflow for retrieval, screening, analysis, and validation is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIG. 1.

Flowchart of the bibliometric analysis on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration.

Experiment

Global overview and publication trend analysis

Through keyword-based searches in the WoSCC database, after excluding non-English literature, other types of literature and nonarticle records (e.g., meeting abstract, editorial material and letter), a total of 388 articles related to piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration were identified, including 346 original articles and 42 review articles. These works involved 2308 authors from 46 countries and 578 institutions, citing 17,385 references from 3145 journals. Following identical retrieval and screening procedures in the Scopus database, 141 publications on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regenerative were identified for cross-validation of publication trends.

Figure 2 shows the annual number of publications and the cumulative number of publications in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration across both WoSCC and Scopus databases. Analysis of WoSCC reveals that the earliest article on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration was published in 2002. In 2017, the annual output rose modestly, surpassing 10 articles (11 articles) for the first time. However, overall publication activity in this field stayed limited, reflecting a relatively low level of research attention at that stage. From 2019 onward, annual publications once more surpassed 10 articles (19 articles) and showed steady growth through 2020, marking a notable rise in research activity within this area. By 2021, the cumulative number of publications in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration exceeded 100 articles (118 articles), and by July 31, 2025, the cumulative number of publications in this field reached a peak of 388 articles. Although there was a slight decrease in annual output in 2021 compared with 2020, the overall cumulative growth showed an exponential trajectory, reflecting sustained research interest in this field. Notably, original research articles accounted for most publications, and their proportion has continued to increase compared with review articles. This shift indicates that the field is evolving beyond conceptual exploration toward more substantial experimental investigations.

FIG. 2.

Annual numbers and cumulative publication trends on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration derived from the (A) Web of Science Core Citation (WoSCC) database and (B) Scopus database.

Analysis of the Scopus database reveals that the earliest research article on piezoelectric materials in this field was published in 2012, with the annual cumulative output increasing annually thereafter. The annual cumulative output first exceeded 10 articles (14 articles) in 2018, although overall publication activity in this domain also remained limited. In 2020, annual publications exceeded 10 for the first time (11 articles), with cumulative publications reaching 30 articles, signifying a marked increase in research activity. By 2024, cumulative publications in piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration surpassed 100 articles, reaching 141 articles by July 31, 2025. Despite a slight dip in annual publications in 2021 compared with 2020, the overall cumulative growth followed an exponential trajectory. This aligns with the annual cumulative publication trends observed in the WoSCC database, further highlighting the field’s rapid expansion and potential for future innovation.

Country analysis

A country-level analysis of the 388 publications was conducted using VOSviewer, Origin, Python, and Bibliometrix to evaluate global contributions in this field. By analyzing the number of publications by country, we quantitatively assessed the academic contributions of countries globally. Analysis shows that there are 15 countries with 7 or more published articles, 10 countries with 10 or more published articles, and 5 countries with 23 or more published articles. China occupies a dominant position, contributing 227 publications with a total of 5545 citations (Fig. 3A), averaging 24.43 citations per article. Since 2017, research output from China has continued to grow, and after 2024, more than half of the worldwide articles in this field originated from China (Fig. 3B). Remarkably, China contributed 58.35% of all publications—more than the combined output of all other countries. This reflects not only the strong institutional and policy support for biomaterials research in China but also the growing international visibility of Chinese scholars in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. The United States ranks second with 40 articles, accounting for 10.28% of the total, with publications cited 2317 times, averaging 57.93 citations per article. This relatively high citation impact highlights the broad recognition and influence of U.S. research, despite its lower publication volume compared with China. Iran ranks third with 28 articles, accounting for 7.2% of the total, with publications cited 605 times, averaging 21.61 citations per article, followed closely by India (26 publications, 1175 citations, average 45.19 citations per article) and Portugal (23 publications, 867 citations, average 37.70 citations per article). Among the top 10 contributors, the United Kingdom achieved the highest mean citation rate (75.07 per article), reflecting strong scholarly influence in this domain (Table 1). Collectively, China, the United States, and Iran together accounted for 75.84% of the total global output, a proportion 3.1 times greater than that of all remaining countries combined. This concentration of productivity indicates the emergence of a leading group of nations driving the field forward.

FIG. 3.

National collaboration analysis in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. (A) Coauthorship network map of countries based on VOSviewer. (B) Annual publication output of major contributing countries. (C, D) Global cooperation patterns. (E) Collaboration strength between countries. (F) Timeline visualization of the coauthorship network.

Table 1.

Top 10 Countries in Terms of the Number of Published Articles

Rank	Country	Record	Citations	Total link strength	Average citations
1	China	227	5545	21	24.43
2	United States of America	40	2317	27	57.93
3	Iran	28	605	6	21.61
4	India	26	1175	9	45.19
5	Portugal	23	867	15	37.70
6	Spain	17	540	16	31.76
7	United Kingdom	15	1126	11	75.07
8	South Korea	13	210	9	16.15
9	Germany	12	439	4	36.58
10	Italy	10	382	4	38.20

International collaboration networks further highlight these dynamics (Fig. 3C,D). High-frequency collaborations (≥2) revealed that China–United States and Portugal–Spain partnerships were the most frequent, each with 14 collaborative links (Fig. 3E). From the timeline of the coauthorship network, it can be observed that the key nodes connecting other countries evolved from early Portugal and Italy to the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Since 2023, China has become a key node serving as a central bridge among countries, fostering major developments and partnerships within the discipline (Fig. 3F). This transition marks China’s evolution from a regional leader to a central global player in piezoelectric biomaterials research.

Author and co-cited author analysis

A total of 2301 authors contributed to research on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. When the publication threshold was set at a minimum of 5 articles, 37 researchers met the criteria. Further increasing the threshold to 10 articles reduced the number of qualifying authors to six, highlighting that research productivity is highly concentrated within a small group of leading scholars. Network visualization revealed distinct collaboration clusters, with the largest groups predominantly consisting of Chinese scholars (Fig. 4A). The two most prominent clusters exhibit particularly close collaboration: the orange cluster includes Yufei Tang (Sichuan University), Kang Zhao and Cong Wu (Xi’an University of Technology), and Zixiang Wu (The Fourth Military Medical University). The blue cluster is primarily composed of Xiaokang Li, Zheng Guo, and Ning Wang (The Fourth Military Medical University), as well as Yilai Jiao (Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences). Additional significant clusters also demonstrate strong collaborative ties. The purple cluster features Chengyun Ning and Peng Yu (South China University of Technology), while the red cluster includes Yan Xu, Xiaobo Feng, and Cao Yang (Huazhong University of Science and Technology), along with Shuilin Wu (Peking University). Similarly, the green cluster comprises Qing Cai and Xiaoping Yang (Beijing University of Chemical Technology), Xuehui Zhang (Peking University), and Qi Wang (Sichuan University). The yellow cluster consists of Shuping Peng (Central South University), and Cijun Shuai, Fangwei Qi, and Youwen Yang (Jiangxi University of Science and Technology). The analysis indicates that these clusters not only exhibit strong internal collaboration but also establish meaningful intercluster cooperative relationships, which significantly contribute to the advancement of the field.

FIG. 4.

Analysis of authors in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. (A) Coauthorship network of prolific authors. (B) Author cocitation network. (C) Annual publication volume of the top 10 authors.

Research in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration involves 2301 scholars, underscoring the broad participation in this area. As shown in Table 2, all the top nine high-output authors are affiliated with Chinese institutions, reflecting a notable geographic concentration. Among them, Fangwei Qi (Jiangxi University of Science and Technology) and Peng Yu (South China University of Technology) lead with 12 publications each, and possess H-indices of 33 and 25, respectively, establishing both as authoritative figures in the field. Furthermore, these high-output scholars are all key members of the major collaboration clusters identified in Figure 4A, highlighting the strong research cooperation and substantial academic output among Chinese researchers. Among the top nine most prolific authors based on publication count, Shuping Peng (Central South University) achieved the highest average of 90 citations per article, followed by Cijun Shuai and Fangwei Qi, with 73.91 and 71.25 citations per article, respectively.

Table 2.

Top 9 Authors in Terms of the Number of Published Articles

Rank	Author	Affiliation	Record	Citations	Total link strength	H-index	Average citations
1	Fangwei Qi	Jiangxi University of Science and Technology	12	855	20	33	71.25
2	Peng Yu	South China University of Technology	12	343	11	25	28.58
3	Cijun Shuai	Jiangxi University of Science and Technology	11	813	20	69	73.91
4	Yufei Tang	Xi’an University of Technology	11	428	19	42	38.91
5	Kang Zhao	Xi’an University of Technology	11	337	18	27	30.64
6	Chengyun Ning	South China University of Technology	11	330	11	48	30.00
7	Shuping Peng	Central South University	9	810	18	46	90
8	Cong Wu	Xi’an University of Technology	9	376	17	14	41.78
9	Yantao Zhao	PLA General Hospital	8	32	0	18	4

The temporal distribution of publications (Fig. 4B) indicates that most of these key authors began contributing to the field between 2016–2019, with a sharp increase in research output after 2020. This trend corresponds with the growing global interest in piezoelectric biomaterials, suggesting that many current leading researchers entered the field during a period of rapid expansion.

Professor C. Ribeiro (Portugal) ranked as the most highly cocited scholar, with 206 cocitations, followed by E. Fukada (Japan) with 152 cocitations and Cijun Shuai (China) with 135 cocitations (Table 3). We conducted an author cocitation network using VOSviewer (Fig. 4C), in which node size represents cocitation frequency and line thickness indicates the strength of association between references. This visualization underscores the strong academic recognition of scholars such as C. Ribeiro, E. Fukada, and Cijun Shuai, reflecting the significant impact of their research. Their contributions have played a pivotal role in advancing the application of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration.

Table 3.

Top 10 Co-Cited Authors in the Field of Piezoelectric Materials for Bone and Cartilage Regeneration

Rank	Author	Country	Affiliation	Citations	Total link strength	H-index
1	C. Ribeiro	Portugal	University of Minho	206	849	42
2	E. Fukada	Japan	Institute of Physical and Chemical Research	152	713	35
3	Cijun Shuai	China	Jiangxi University of Science and Technology	135	586	69
4	Deepak Khare	India	Indian Institute of Technology	121	505	8
5	Yang Liu	China	Peking University	107	445	35
6	Yufei Tang	China	Sichuan University	106	488	42
7	Biranche Tandon	UK	The University of Manchester	103	529	9
8	Jaicy Jacob	India	National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research	98	549	2
9	Amir Hossein Rajabi	Iran	Shiraz University	95	476	10
10	Tianyi Zheng	China	Liaoning University of Technology	91	490	12

Taken together, author and cocited author analyses reveal a research landscape shaped by two key features: the dominant presence of Chinese scholars driving publication output, and the enduring influence of international leaders whose work continues to anchor the field. This dual structure combining high productivity with deep scholarly influence has established a solid foundation for future advances in piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration.

Institution analysis

To assess the contributions of different institutions in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration, we analyzed and visualized the publication output across various organizations. A total of 578 institutions worldwide are engaged in this field, reflecting a broad base of participation. When a publication threshold of five articles was applied, 39 institutions qualified as active contributors. Raising the threshold to 14 publications narrowed this group to just 10 institutions. According to Table 4, Shanghai Jiao Tong University leads with 26 publications, accounting for 6.68% of the total output, which have received 206 citations (averaging 7.92 citations per article). The Fourth Military Medical University follows with 22 publications (5.66%), garnering 796 citations (36.18 per article). The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences ranks third with 19 publications (4.88%), accumulating 960 citations (50.53 per article). Chinese institutions occupy the top nine positions in the ranking by publication volume, with the University of Minho (Portugal) being the only non-Chinese institution in the top 10.

Table 4.

Top 10 Institutions in Terms of the Number of Published Articles

Rank	Institution	Country	Record	Citations	Total link strength	Average citations
1	Shanghai Jiao Tong University	China	26	206	6	7.92
2	The Fourth Military Medical University	China	22	796	14	36.18
3	University of Chinese Academy of Sciences	China	19	960	9	50.53
4	Sichuan University	China	17	434	8	25.53
5	Huazhong University of Science and Technology	China	16	662	2	41.38
6	South China University of Technology	China	15	404	1	26.93
7	Xi’an University of Technology	China	14	445	10	31.79
8	Central South University	China	14	757	5	54.07
9	Zhejiang University	China	14	173	3	12.36
10	University of Minho	Portugal	wen	637	0	45.50

This distribution highlights the predominant role of Chinese institutions in this research area, underscoring their high level of engagement and growing international impact. It also reflects the supportive research environment and strategic investment within China in the field of biomedical materials. Although not among the top producers by volume, the University of Minho merits special attention: with 14 publications and an average of 45.50 citations per article, it demonstrates considerable scholarly influence and serves as an important node connecting European and global research communities.

Figure 5A shows the unique clustering patterns formed by institutions with four or more publications. These 67 institutions are organized into 14 clusters, with Chinese institutions being the representatives. Notably, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, The Fourth Military Medical University, the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sichuan University, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology along with the University of Minho are key institutions in the larger clusters, making significant contributions to the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration (Fig. 5B). Figure 5C further demonstrates the associations between institutions, journals, and countries in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration.

FIG. 5.

Analysis of institutional collaboration on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. (A) Collaborative network among institutions. (B) Density visualization of institutional research focus. (C) Three-field plot illustrating the relationships between institutions, journals, and countries.

Taken together, institutional analysis highlights the concentration of research activity within a core group of Chinese universities, complemented by influential contributions from select international institutions. This dual structure suggests that while China leads global research output, international partners ensure diversity, visibility, and global integration of research on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration.

Journal analysis

This study encompasses 388 articles published in 150 journals. As shown in Table 5, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces leads with 20 articles, receiving 816 citations and an average of 40.8 citations per article. Nano Energy follows with 9 articles, which garnered 709 citations, yielding an average of 78.78 citations per article—the highest in the field.

Table 5.

Top 12 Journals in Terms of the Number of Published Articles

Rank	Journal	Country	Record	IF	H-Index	JCR	Citations	Average citations
1	ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces	USA	20	8.2	169	Q1	816	40.8
2	Ceramics International	UK	18	5.6	89	Q1	312	17.33
3	Advanced Functional Materials	Germany	13	19	269	Q1	178	13.69
4	Bioactive Materials	Netherlands	11	20.3	90	Q1	396	36
5	Nano Energy	USA	9	17.1	112	Q1	709	78.78
6	Biomaterials Advances	Netherlands	9	6	104	Q2	88	9.78
7	ACS Nano	USA	9	16	310	Q1	204	22.67
8	Advanced Healthcare Materials	USA	8	9.6	63	Q1	194	24.25
9	Chemical Engineering Journal	Netherlands	8	13.2	172	Q1	198	24.75
10	Materials Today Bio	Netherlands	8	10.2	37	Q1	66	8.25
11	International Journal of Molecular Sciences	USA	8	4.9	114	Q1	270	33.75
12	Advanced Materials	USA	8	26.8	447	Q1	49	6.125

The top 12 journals by publication volume exhibit the following characteristics: first, a top-tier journal cluster (11 journals, 92%) are ranked in the JCR Q1 quartile according to the 2025 Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Second, core publishers: six of the top journals are based in the United States and four in the Netherlands, underscoring the central role of North American and European publishers in the editorial landscape. Among them, Advanced Materials (impact factor = 26.8, H-index = 447) stands out as the most influential in terms of citation performance and reputation, despite publishing fewer articles (eight articles). Specialized journals (e.g., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces) dominate publications, while multidisciplinary journals drive high-impact advances.

We conducted a visual analysis of journals in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration from January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2025 using VOSviewer. When the publication threshold was set to 2, 62 journals were identified as contributing to this research field; when the threshold was increased 10, 4 journals met this criterion. Figure 6A shows the unique clustering patterns formed by journals with two or more publications, and Figure 6B shows the hotspot distribution map of journals with two or more publications. As shown, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Ceramics International, Advanced Functional Materials, and Biomaterials Advances are the most productive journals and core hubs in the four clusters, indicating their prominent role and high activity in publishing articles in this field. Figure 6C reveals that none of the current top 10 journals published relevant research before 2014. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces was the first to publish in this area in 2014, followed by a growing number of journals beginning in 2016, reflecting a steady increase in annual publications and sustained academic interest. Figure 6D shows the most frequently cocited journals—including Biomaterials, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, Advanced Materials, and Acta Biomaterialia—which play a central role in structuring knowledge and driving scholarly communication.

FIG. 6.

Journal analysis in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. (A) Network of journals based on cocitation. (B) Density visualization of journal issues. (C) Annual publication count of the top 10 journals. (D) Journal cocitation network. (E) Dual-map overlay of journals.

To elucidate the characteristics of interdisciplinary knowledge flow among journals, this study employed a dual-map overlay analysis to visualize citation networks (Fig. 6E). The left side of the map represents the distribution of citing journals, while the right side depicts the distribution of cited journals. Colored trajectory lines comprehensively illustrate the origins and destinations of citations. The analysis identified two core citation paths (two purple paths): both originate from journals in the physics/materials/chemistry domains. Their research predominantly cites articles from molecular/biology/genetics and chemistry/materials/physics journals. This reflects how advances in piezoelectric materials both enable foundational life science research and stimulate further innovation within materials-oriented fields.

In summary, journal analysis reveals a publishing ecosystem marked by specialization and interdisciplinary exchange. Specialized journals sustain ongoing research output, while high-impact multidisciplinary journals enhance global reach and recognition. This dual structure supports both technical development and the integration of piezoelectric biomaterials into broader biomedical applications.

Reference analysis

As shown in Figure 7A,B, we constructed a cocitation literature clustering map and a hotspot distribution map using VOSviewer, where 76 highly cocited articles (≥40 citations) formed 9 clusters.

FIG. 7.

Reference cocitation analysis in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. (A) Cocitation network cluster view. (B) Timeline visualization of the cocitation network.

As summarized in Table 6, the top 10 highly cited articles in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration consist of 5 experimental studies and 5 review articles. The review by Rajabi et al. published in Acta Biomaterialia in 2015, ranks first with 484 citations. It provides a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms underlying piezoelectricity in various biological tissues, recent advances, and applications, serving as a conceptual cornerstone for subsequent research.⁴¹ Ranking second is an experimental study by Cijun Shuai et al., published in Nano Energy in 2020, with 359 citations. The authors fabricated a novel three-dimensional porous poly(vinylidene fluoride)/silver-modified piezoelectric barium titanate (PVDF/Ag-pBT) scaffold using selective laser sintering, which exhibited enhanced piezoelectric performance, promoted cell proliferation and differentiation, and demonstrated strong antibacterial activity against E. coli.⁴² This work exemplifies the field’s dual focus on material innovation and biomedical applicability. The third-most cited publication is a review by Deepak Khare et al., published in Biomaterials in 2020 and cited 355 times. It addresses fundamental bioelectrical phenomena in natural bone and surveys the development of piezoelectric bioceramics and biopolymers for bone tissue engineering applications.⁴³ The significant academic influence of these highly cited publications underscores their pivotal role in shaping and advancing the field.

Table 6.

Top 10 Cited Publications Ranked in the Field

Rank	Title	First author	Journal	Citations	Year	JCR	Details
1	Piezoelectric materials for tissue regeneration: A review⁴¹	Amir Hossein Rajabi	Acta Biomaterialia	484	2015	Q1	This review provides an in-depth analysis of piezoelectric properties in various biological tissues, explores the associated mechanisms, and discusses contemporary developments and their potential applications.
2	A strawberry-like Ag-decorated barium titanate enhances piezoelectric and antibacterial activities of polymer scaffold⁴²	Cijun Shuai	Nano Energy	359	2020	Q1	The PVDF scaffold, produced through selective laser sintering (SLS), was integrated with strawberry-like structured Ag-pBT nanoparticles, optimizing its performance and mechanical characteristics.
3	Electrical stimulation and piezoelectric biomaterials for bone tissue engineering applications⁴³	Deepak Khare	Biomaterials	355	2020	Q1	This review meticulously underscores the compelling significance of piezoelectric bioceramics and piezoelectric biopolymers as avant-garde biomaterials in the realm of orthopedics, delineating their pivotal role in advancing the next generation of therapeutic interventions.
4	Piezoelectric smart biomaterials for bone and cartilage tissue engineering⁴⁴	Jaicy Jacob	Inflammation and Regeneration	315	2018	Q1	The current review primarily focuses on elucidating the underlying mechanisms associated with electrical stimulation within biological systems, as well as evaluating the diverse array of piezoelectric materials that exhibit potential for application in bone and cartilage tissue engineering.
5	Piezoelectric materials as stimulatory biomedical materials and scaffolds for bone repair⁴⁵	Biranche Tandon	Acta Biomaterialia	300	2018	Q1	This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the correlation between the piezoelectric effect and bone regeneration, with a particular emphasis on cutting-edge piezoelectric materials, including polymers, ceramics, and their composite derivatives. It further explores advanced fabrication methodologies for developing piezoelectric scaffolds and their therapeutic applications in bone tissue engineering and repair.
6	Exercise-induced piezoelectric stimulation for cartilage regeneration in rabbits⁴⁶	Yang Liu	Science Translational Medicine	215	2022	Q1	This study engineered a biodegradable scaffold composed of PLLA [poly(l-lactic acid)] nanofibers, which exhibited piezoelectric properties under mechanical deformation, thereby enhancing chondrogenic differentiation in vitro through the generation of endogenous electrical stimulation.
7	Three-dimensional piezoelectric fibrous scaffolds selectively promote mesenchymal stem cell differentiation⁴⁷	Sita M Damaraju	Biomaterials	209	2017	Q1	This study demonstrates that piezoelectric materials can be engineered into flexible, three-dimensional fibrous scaffolds capable of promoting human mesenchymal stem cell (hMSC) differentiation and subsequent extracellular matrix (ECM) deposition and tissue formation under physiologically relevant mechanical loading conditions.
8	Highly porous scaffolds of PEDOT:PSS for bone tissue engineering⁴⁸	Anne Géraldine Guex	Acta Biomaterialia	207	2017	Q1	In this investigation, PEDOT:PSS scaffolds were meticulously engineered and subjected to in vitro evaluation utilizing MC3T3-E1 osteoprogenitor cells, with comprehensive assessment of cellular progression through distinct differentiation stages and the manifestation of osteogenic phenotypic markers.
9	Fabrication and in vitro biological properties of piezoelectric bioceramics for bone regeneration⁴⁹	Yufei Tang	Nature	174	2017	Q1	A biomechanical loading apparatus was developed to replicate the physiological forces associated with human motion, enabling the application of cyclic mechanical stimulation to piezoelectric materials during coculture with cells, thereby facilitating an accurate assessment of the piezoelectric effect on osteogenic regeneration.
10	Electrically active bioceramics: a review of interfacial responses⁵⁰	F R Baxter	Annals of Biomedical Engineering	169	2010	Q1	This comprehensive review synthesizes the findings from recent studies on polarized and piezoelectric bioceramics, aiming to delineate the current advancements and elucidate their potential applications in bone implantation and regenerative medicine.

Keyword analysis

Keyword analysis is an important tool for identifying the research focus of publications. Among all keywords, 10 keywords appeared more than 45 times, including bone regeneration (71), osteogenic differentiation (63), differentiation (60), piezoelectric (59), bone (58), piezoelectricity (52), scaffolds (52), osteogenesis (51), bone tissue engineering (50), and hydroxyapatite (45). Table 7 lists the top 10 most frequent author keywords related to piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration.

Table 7.

Top 10 Author’s Keywords in the List by Frequency

Rank	Keywords	Frequency	Total link strength
1	bone regeneration	61	44
2	piezoelectric	59	45
3	bone tissue engineering	50	42
4	piezoelectricity	49	45
5	barium titanate	33	32
6	electrical stimulation	30	29
7	osteogenesis	30	25
8	tissue engineering	28	36
9	electrospinning	24	25
10	osteogenic differentiation	19	11

Frequency maps of author keywords and Keywords Plus were generated, where larger squares represent higher frequency (Fig. 8A,B). Trend topic analyses for both keyword types are also provided (Fig. 8C,D). Fifteen clusters were generated through semantic integration and modular clustering based on the cluster analysis of 1593 keywords (Fig. 8E): #0, bone regeneration, #1, piezoelectric ceramic; #2, piezoelectric scaffolds; #3, osteogenic differentiation; #4, bone healing; #5, regenerative medicine; #6, macrophage polarization; #7, expression; #8, electrical stimulation; #9, calcium phosphate coating; #10, osteoblast; #11, near-field electrospinning; #12, piezoelectric nanofibers; #13, bone defect and #14, self-assembly. These clusters reflect current research hotspots and major directions in the field. Further cluster analysis using Bibliometrix grouped both author keywords and Keywords Plus into three overarching clusters each (Fig. 8F,G), providing enhanced clarity and organization of research themes.

FIG. 8.

Keyword analysis on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage repair. (A) Author’s keywords frequency map. (B) Keywords plus frequency map. (C) Author’s keywords trend topics. (D) Keywords plus trend topics. (E) Keywords clustering map. (F) Author’s keywords clustering map. (G) Keywords plus clustering map.

Overall, keyword analysis reveals the intellectual evolution of the field: from foundational studies on piezoelectric phenomena to recent advances in scaffold design, bioactive composites, and immunomodulatory mechanisms. This trajectory suggests that future work will likely integrate smart material design with advanced manufacturing and immunoregulatory strategies, thereby facilitating the clinical translation of piezoelectric biomaterials for musculoskeletal repair.

To cross-validate keyword hotspots, we analyzed burst keywords and high-frequency keywords from Scopus-derived publications. The top 40 high-frequency keywords (Table 8) and the top 30 keywords with the strongest citation bursts are listed (Fig. 9A,B) from two databases within this field.

FIG. 9.

Keyword cross-validation analysis from the WoSCC and Scopus databases. (A, B) Top 30 keywords with the strongest citation bursts from (A) WoSCC and (B) Scopus. (C, D) Overlap of (C) the top 30 burst keywords and (D) the top 40 high-frequency keywords between the two databases. (E) Keywords time zone and (F) timeline view.

Table 8.

Top 40 High-Frequency Keywords from the WoSCC and Scopus Databases on Piezoelectric Materials for Bone and Cartilage Regeneration

Rank	Keywords from the WoSCC	Keywords from Scopus
1	bone regeneration	bone regeneration
2	osteogenic differentiation	piezoelectric
3	differentiation	bone tissue engineering
4	piezoelectric	piezoelectricity
5	bone	electrical stimulation
6	scaffolds	barium titanate
7	piezoelectricity	osteogenesis
8	osteogenesis	tissue engineering
9	bone tissue engineering	hydroxyapatite
10	hydroxyapatite	scaffold
11	in-vitro	bone repair
12	proliferation	electrospinning
13	stimulation	osteogenic differentiation
14	barium titanate	3d printing
15	scaffold	biocompatibility
16	mesenchymal stem cells	biomaterials
17	biomaterials	electroactive
18	electrical stimulation	antibacterial
19	tissue engineering	mesenchymal stem cells
20	regeneration	polarization
21	nanoparticles	piezoelectric effect
22	fabrication	adhesion
23	growth	osteoblast
24	electrospinning	pvdf
25	membranes	bone
26	biocompatibility	piezoelectric materials
27	antibacterial	piezoelectric biomaterials
28	ceramics	barium titanate
29	poly (vinylidene fluoride)	additive manufacturing
30	adhesion	bioactive
31	composites	scaffolds
32	pvdf	nanogenerators
33	behavior	ceramics
34	nanocomposite	ultrasound stimulation
35	bone repair	angiogenesis
36	performance	BaTiO₃
37	polarization	electroactive biomaterials
38	nanofibers	orthopedics
39	3d printing	electric stimulation
40	repair	ultrasound

Italics Denote Overlapping Keywords.

Among top 30 keywords with the strongest citation bursts from WoSCC, “electrical property” (2008–2019) demonstrated the most sustained attention. Recent emerging hotspots (2023–2025) include “osteogenic differentiation,” “3D printing,” “bone repair,” “repair,” “hydrogels,” and “dielectric property.” In Scopus, “bone” and “ceramic” (2014–2020) showed the most sustained attention, with recent hotspots (2024–2025) such as “osteogenesis,” “ultrasound stimulation,” “boron nitride nanotube,” “electroactive biomaterials,” and “piezoelectric ceramics.”

Furthermore, we performed an overlap analysis of the top 30 keywords with the strongest citation bursts and top 40 high-frequency keywords on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage repair across both the WoSCC and Scopus databases (Fig. 9C,D). We found that 10 keywords overlapped between the top 30 burst keywords in both databases: “osteoblast,” “bone,” “poly(vinylidene fluoride),” “PVDF,” “scaffold,” “nanocomposite,” “calcium phosphate,” “tissue engineering,” “titanium,” and “osteogenic differentiation,” indicating that future research will focus on these directions. Twenty-four of the top 40 high-frequency keywords overlapped between databases, namely “3D printing,” “antibacterial,” “barium titanate,” “biocompatibility,” “biomaterials,” “bone,” “bone regeneration,” “bone repair,” “bone tissue engineering,” “adhesion,” “electrical stimulation,” “electrospinning,” “hydroxyapatite,” “mesenchymal stem cells,” “osteogenesis,” “osteogenic differentiation,” “piezoelectric,” “ceramics,” “piezoelectricity,” “polarization,” “PVDF,” “scaffold,” “scaffolds,” and “tissue engineering,” indicating research hotspots and primary directions in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. Our analysis of keywords from WoSCC and Scopus in this field reveals strong overlap and consistency, further corroborating the reliability of the bibliometric findings in this study.

Analysis of the time zone and timeline views (Fig. 9E,F) reveals the evolution trajectory and three distinct phases of research hotspots. The initial stage emphasized conceptual validation through conventional piezoelectric materials, with preliminary exploration of osteo-chondrogenic differentiation mechanisms. The mid stage was characterized by innovative material exploration, featuring structural diversification and the emergence of novel piezoelectric materials. The current stage is dominated by advanced nano-engineered composites that exhibit enhanced bio-adhesion and biocompatibility, with a strong emphasis on multifunctional surface modifications and the elucidation of mechano-biological mechanisms via piezocatalysis and electromechanical coupling.

Discussion

Using bibliometric methods, this study systematically analyzed the current research status in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration. Through analysis of the publication data obtained from the WoSCC database, we discovered that from the perspective of overall publication trends, the first study in this field was published in 2002, and the annual publication volume began to peak in 2017. Since then, the cumulative annual publication volume has shown a steady upward trend, with exponential growth starting in 2019–2020. This indicates that an increasing number of scholars are focusing on this field over time. Cross-validation of the Scopus database reveals that the cumulative annual publication trend in this field also exhibits exponential growth, consistent with the findings from the WoSCC database. This further underscores the high level of attention and research potential within this field.

From a global perspective, the field has experienced exponential growth since 2019, driven largely by Chinese scholars and institutions. China leads among the 46 contributing countries, ranking first in publications, citations, and international collaborations. This suggests that Chinese scholars have significantly influenced the future development trends of this field. From the timeline of international collaboration, the earliest collaborations in this field originated in European countries, with key nodes connecting other countries evolving from Portugal and Italy to the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Since 2023, China has become a key node connecting other countries, driving international collaboration, and making important contributions to research in this field.

Author analysis showed that Fangwei Qi from the Jiangxi University of Science and Technology is the most influential scholar in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration, with the highest number of publications. His main research directions include Materials Science, Engineering, Chemistry, and Science and Technology. Cijun Shuai from the same institution has the second-highest number of publications in this field and ranks first among the top 9 authors in terms of H-index and average citations. His main research directions include materials science, engineering, chemistry, metallurgy and metallurgical engineering, and science and technology. Through cocitation analysis, we found that Professor C. Ribeiro from the University of Minho is not only the most cocited author but also has the highest H-index among the top 10 cocited authors, highlighting his influence in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration.

Collaboration networks reveal strong partnerships among researchers from different institutions, predominantly involving Chinese scholars. Many collaborations occur within the same or adjacent regions, pointing to a degree of geographic concentration, although cross-institutional partnerships are also widespread. This trend reflects intensifying academic exchanges and multi-institutional cooperation, facilitating interdisciplinary integration and providing a solid foundation for future advancements.

Institutional analysis indicates that 578 institutions have contributed to the field. Among the top 10 institutions by publication volume, nine are based in China, with the University of Minho (Portugal) ranking tenth. Shanghai Jiao Tong University leads in publication numbers, the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences has the highest total citations, and Central South University ranks first in average citations per publication, demonstrating the significant role of Chinese institutions in advancing this research.

Journal analysis shows that ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces has published the most articles in the field, followed by Ceramics International and Advanced Functional Materials. These three journals also serve as core nodes in clustering analysis, highlighting their central role and academic impact. Citation analysis reveals that journals in molecular, biology, genetics, chemistry, materials, and physics are frequently cited, indicating strong interdisciplinary interest in cellular mechanisms and material properties.

Reference analysis of the top 10 most-cited publications shows a balance between experimental studies and review articles, with the latter focusing on mechanisms and applications of piezoelectric materials in tissue regeneration. The most cited article is a comprehensive review published in Acta Biomaterialia in 2015, which has become a cornerstone for subsequent research.

Keyword analysis identified four major research themes: innovation in piezoelectric materials, fabrication methods, material properties, and repair mechanisms. Cluster analysis grouped keywords into 15 clusters, which were further categorized into four thematic directions: material repair effects (#0, bone regeneration; #4, bone healing; #13, bone defect), mechanism research (#3, osteogenic differentiation; #6, macrophage polarization; #7, expression; #8, electrical stimulation; #10 osteoblast), material forms (#1, piezoelectric ceramic; #2, piezoelectric scaffolds; #12, piezoelectric nanofibers), and material synthesis and modification (#5, regenerative medicine; #9, calcium phosphate coating; #11, near-field electrospinning; #14 self-assembly). This clustering analysis further clarifies the research hotspots, key directions, and future development trends in the field of piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration, providing valuable references for scholars in this field. Burst detection analysis in WoSCC indicates a shift from early focus on electrical properties and in vitro studies toward diversified material forms (e.g., membranes, scaffolds, nanofibers) and mechanical optimization, with recent emphasis on composite materials and advanced manufacturing such as 3D printing. Analysis of Scopus data indicates a similar evolution that from conventional materials and osteoblast regulation toward compositional innovation (e.g., calcium phosphate, ZnO, barium titanate), novel morphologies (nanogenerators, bioactive glasses), and broader cellular and mechanistic studies (e.g., mesenchymal stem cells, osteogenic differentiation). We conducted an overlap analysis of two databases’ top 30 keywords with the strongest citation bursts and top 40 high-frequency keywords, through which we found that overlapping keywords can be categorized into different directions (Table 9). Cross-validation and overlap analysis of keywords across dual databases not only elucidates the primary and emerging research hotpots on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration but also indicates promising future research directions, thereby providing valuable insights for further in-depth exploration in this field.

Table 9.

Categories of Overlapping Keywords Across the WoSCC and Scopus Databases

Categories	Top 30 keywords with the strongest citation bursts	Top 40 high-frequency keywords
Topic-related	tissue engineering; bone	biomaterials; bone; bone regeneration; bone repair; bone tissue engineering; piezoelectric; piezoelectricity; tissue engineering
Component	poly (vinylidene fluoride); pvdf; calcium phosphate; titanium	barium titanate; hydroxyapatite; pvdf
Method	—	3d printing; electrospinning
Material form	scaffold; nanocomposite	ceramics; scaffold; scaffolds
Mechanism	osteoblast; osteogenic differentiation	antibacterial; biocompatibility; adhesion; electrical stimulation; mesenchymal stem cells; osteogenesis; osteogenic differentiation; polarization

The research on piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration has progressed from laboratory exploration toward clinical translation, yet critical challenges remain, including biological challenges (biosafety, long-term toxicity,⁴⁴ and microenvironment compatibility⁴⁵), material performance issues (electromechanical coupling efficiencies, long-term stability⁴⁶), and translational barriers (structural biomimicry,⁴⁷ lack of clinical standards, scalable manufacturing⁴⁸) To address these issues, researchers have employed material modifications to enhance biocompatibility,⁴⁹ dynamic electrical stimulation to regulate cellular behavior,⁵⁰ 3D-printed biomimetic scaffolds,⁵¹ and smart responsive materials⁵² to improve therapeutic efficacy. Future directions should emphasize multimodal synergistic therapy,⁵³ organ-on-a-chip integration,⁵⁴ clinical-scale production,⁵⁵ and AI-assisted design.⁵⁶ Additionally, in situ monitoring and feedback-controlled therapy⁵⁷ and interdisciplinary collaboration⁵⁸ are pivotal for breakthroughs. Within the next 5–10 years, piezoelectric materials are expected to achieve clinical milestones in personalized bone repair implants and electrostimulatory osteoarthritis therapy. However, balancing biocompatibility and degradability⁵⁹ and validating efficacy in large-animal models⁶⁰ remain essential. The advancement of this field will rely on the deep integration of materials science, biology, and clinical medicine, ultimately transforming piezoelectric materials from laboratory tools into clinically viable therapeutics.

This study regards the application of piezoelectric materials in bone and cartilage regeneration as a unified research field. However, an in-depth analysis of current research hotspots reveals significant differences in the requirements for piezoelectric materials designed for the regeneration of these two distinct tissues. In the context of bone regeneration, piezoelectric materials must not only exhibit physical properties—such as strength, toughness, and elastic modulus—comparable with those of natural bone,⁶¹ but also demonstrate favorable biocompatibility to promote cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation on the material surface,⁶² thereby effectively accelerating the repair and regeneration of bone tissue. Unlike bone, cartilage’s avascular nature (lacking blood/lymphatic vessels and neural networks) fundamentally limits its self-repair capacity.⁶³ Therefore, piezoelectric materials intended for cartilage regeneration must not only mimic the hydrated and viscoelastic microenvironment of native cartilage⁶⁴ but should also possess high porosity, a large specific surface area, and adequate space for extracellular matrix assembly. These characteristics are essential to ensure efficient transport of nutrients and oxygen, timely removal of metabolic waste, and ultimately, the maintenance of favorable cell viability.⁶⁵ Ideally, such materials should also synergistically promote cartilage regeneration, vascularization, and neural ingrowth within the defect area. Recognizing these differences is of significant importance for the future development of piezoelectric biomaterials tailored to specific tissue regeneration needs.

This bibliometric study provides a comprehensive overview of the field, but it is not without limitations. First, the data were sourced exclusively from WoSCC and Scopus, which may not capture all relevant publications. Secondly, it should be noted that the citation analysis in this study did not exclude self-citations, which may partially influence the assessment of impact for authors, institutions, and countries. Additionally, although our cocitation clustering analysis (Fig. 7) employed log-likelihood ratio (LLR) and semantic evaluation of titles/abstracts to categorize influential references, the automated labeling approach may not fully capture nuanced thematic distinctions between clusters. While LLR effectively identifies statistically salient terms, the resulting labels prioritize lexical prominence over conceptual granularity. This limitation is inherent to computational bibliometric methods, which may require supplementary curation or natural language processing refinement to optimize thematic precision. Despite these limitations, our findings offer a robust foundation for understanding the field’s landscape. Future studies could incorporate more diverse data sources, adopt more refined normalization techniques for citation measurement, and benefit from hybrid labeling strategies combining algorithmic clustering with manual annotation by domain specialists.

Conclusion

This comprehensive bibliometric analysis examines global research trends in piezoelectric materials for bone and cartilage regeneration from 2000 to present, revealing a steady growth in annual publications. The study evaluates multiple dimensions, including countries, authors, cocited authors, institutions, journals, references, and keywords. These multidimensional analyses collectively highlight the interdisciplinary nature of piezoelectric biomaterial research. We cross-validated key trends and research hotspots identified in WoSCC using Scopus to align with current robustness standards in bibliometric research. The results demonstrate a high level of consistency between the two databases, which affirms the reliability of the findings. This work provides a foundational reference for future development of piezoelectric biomaterials in bone and cartilage regeneration.

Authors’ Contributions

All the authors contributed to the conception and the main idea of the work. J.L. and Y.H. drafted the main text, the figures, and tables. C. Hu, Y.W., and C. He supervised the work and provided comments and additional scientific information. J.L. and Y.H. contributed equally to this work. All the authors have read and approved the final version of the work to be published.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.

Funding Information

This work was supported by the funding listed as follows: the 1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Grant Number: ZYGD23014).

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

Zura

, Xiong

, Einhorn

, et al. Epidemiology of fracture nonunion in 18 human bones. JAMA Surg, 2016; 151(11):e162775; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2775

Hoenig

, Ackerman

, Beck

, et al. Bone stress injuries. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2022; 8(1):26; doi: 10.1038/s41572-022-00352-y

Epstein

, Sparer

, Tran

, et al. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionalists: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg, 2018; 153(2):e174947; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4947

Morgan

, Unnikrisnan

, Hussein

. Bone mechanical properties in healthy and diseased states. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 2018; 20:119–143; doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-062117-121139

Sun

, Xie

, Wu

, et al. Accelerated bone healing via electrical stimulation. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2025; 12(24):e2404190; doi: 10.1002/advs.202404190

Saul

, Khosla

. Fracture healing in the setting of endocrine diseases, aging, and cellular senescence. Endocr Rev, 2022; 43(6):984–1002; doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnac008

Wildemann

, Ignatius

, Leung

, et al. Non-union bone fractures. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2021; 7(1):57; doi: 10.1038/s41572-021-00289-8

Metsemakers

W-J

, Moriarty

, Morgenstern

, et al. The global burden of fracture-related infection: Can we do better? Lancet Infect Dis, 2024; 24(6):e386–e393; doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00503-0

Safiri

, Kolahi

A-A

, Smith

, et al. Global, regional and national burden of osteoarthritis 1990-2017: A systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79(6):819–828; doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216515

10.

Yuan

, Han

, Tao

, et al. Piezoelectric peptide and metabolite materials. Research (Wash D C), 2019; 2019:9025939; doi: 10.34133/2019/9025939

11.

, Ning

, Zhang

, et al. Bone-Inspired spatially specific piezoelectricity induces bone regeneration. Theranostics, 2017; 7(13):3387–3397; doi: 10.7150/thno.19748

12.

D’Alessandro

, Ricci

, Milazzo

, et al. Piezoelectric signals in vascularized bone regeneration. Biomolecules, 2021; 11(11):1731; doi: 10.3390/biom11111731

13.

Minary-Jolandan

, Yu

M-F

. Uncovering nanoscale electromechanical heterogeneity in the subfibrillar structure of collagen fibrils responsible for the piezoelectricity of bone. ACS Nano, 2009; 3(7):1859–1863; doi: 10.1021/nn900472n

14.

Vasquez-Sancho

, Abdollahi

, Damjanovic

, et al. Flexoelectricity in bones. Adv Mater, 2018; 30(21):e1801413; doi: 10.1002/adma.201705316

15.

Zhang

Y-Q

, Geng

, Li

, et al. Application of piezoelectric materials in the field of bone: A bibliometric analysis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2023; 11:1210637; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1210637

16.

Riddle

, Donahue

. From streaming-potentials to shear stress: 25 years of bone cell mechanotransduction. J Orthop Res, 2009; 27(2):143–149; doi: 10.1002/jor.20723

17.

Bai

, Dai

, Yin

, et al. Biomimetic piezoelectric nanocomposite membranes synergistically enhance osteogenesis of deproteinized bovine bone grafts. Int J Nanomedicine, 2019; 14:3015–3026; doi: 10.2147/IJN.S197824

18.

Kao

F-C

, Chiu

P-Y

, Tsai

T-T

, et al. The application of nanogenerators and piezoelectricity in osteogenesis. Sci Technol Adv Mater, 2019; 20(1):1103–1117; doi: 10.1080/14686996.2019.1693880

19.

, Cui

, Salehi

, et al. Piezoelectric biomaterials for bone regeneration: Roadmap from dipole to osteogenesis. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2025; 12(32):e14969; doi: 10.1002/advs.202414969

20.

Silva

, Fernandes

, Ribeiro

, et al. Two- and three-dimensional piezoelectric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2022; 218:112708; doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2022.112708

21.

Zheng

, Pang

, Zhang

, et al. Integrated piezoelectric/conductive composite cryogel creates electroactive microenvironment for enhanced bone regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2023; 12(26):e2300927; doi: 10.1002/adhm.202300927

22.

Zaszczyńska

, Zabielski

, Gradys

, et al. Piezoelectric scaffolds as smart materials for bone tissue engineering. Polymers (Basel), 2024; 16(19):2797; doi: 10.3390/polym16192797

23.

Wieland

DCF

, Krywka

, Mick

, et al. Investigation of the inverse piezoelectric effect of trabecular bone on a micrometer length scale using synchrotron radiation. Acta Biomater, 2015; 25:339–346; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.07.021

24.

Barbosa

, Ferreira

, Silva

. Piezoelectric Electrospun fibrous scaffolds for bone, articular cartilage and osteochondral tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci, 2022; 23(6):2907; doi: 10.3390/ijms23062907

25.

Kwon

, Lee

, Chun

. Electrical stimulation drives chondrogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells in the absence of exogenous growth factors. Sci Rep, 2016; 6:39302; doi: 10.1038/srep39302

26.

Huang

, Das

, Patel

, et al. Physical stimulations for bone and cartilage regeneration. Regen Eng Transl Med, 2018; 4(4):216–237; doi: 10.1007/s40883-018-0064-0

27.

Wang

, Wu

, Li

, et al. Engineering large-scale self-mineralizing bone organoids with bone matrix-inspired hydroxyapatite hybrid bioinks. Adv Mater, 2024; 36(30):e2309875; doi: 10.1002/adma.202309875

28.

Kim

, Amirthalingam

, Kim

, et al. Biomimetic materials and fabrication approaches for bone tissue engineering. Adv Healthc Mater, 2017; 6(23); doi: 10.1002/adhm.201700612

29.

Wubneh

, Tsekoura

, Ayranci

, et al. Current state of fabrication technologies and materials for bone tissue engineering. Acta Biomater, 2018; 80:1–30; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.09.031

30.

Fernandez-Yague

, Abbah

, McNamara

, et al. Biomimetic approaches in bone tissue engineering: Integrating biological and physicomechanical strategies. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 2015; 84:1–29; doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2014.09.005

31.

Vinikoor

, Dzidotor

, Le

, et al. Injectable and biodegradable piezoelectric hydrogel for osteoarthritis treatment. Nat Commun, 2023; 14(1):6257; doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41594-y

32.

Mirza

, Pan-Pan

, Wan Ibrahim

WMAB

, et al. Chondroprotective effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles in conjunction with hypoxia on bovine cartilage-matrix synthesis. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2015; 103(11):3554–3563; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35495

33.

, Dong

, Tang

, et al. Electrical stimulation of piezoelectric BaTiO3 coated Ti6Al4V scaffolds promotes anti-inflammatory polarization of macrophages and bone repair via MAPK/JNK inhibition and OXPHOS activation. Biomaterials, 2023; 293:121990; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121990

34.

Poon

, Wurm

, Evans

, et al. Biocompatibility of (Ba,Ca)(Zr,Ti)O3 piezoelectric ceramics for bone replacement materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 2020; 108(4):1295–1303; doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.34477

35.

Hassan

, Zafar

, Duarte

, et al. Pharmacological research: A bibliometric analysis from 1989 to 2019. Pharmacol Res, 2021; 169:105645; doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105645

36.

, Liang

, Liu

, et al. Frailty and sarcopenia: A bibliometric analysis of their association and potential targets for intervention. Ageing Res Rev, 2023; 92:102111; doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2023.102111

37.

Ahmad

, Slots

. A bibliometric analysis of periodontology. Periodontol 2000, 2021; 85(1):237–240; doi: 10.1111/prd.12376

38.

Donthu

, Kumar

, Mukherjee

, et al. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res, 2021; 133:285–296; doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

39.

Zhang

, Jia

, Xia

, et al. Knowledge mapping of COVID-19 and autoimmune diseases: A visual and bibliometric analysis. Clin Exp Med, 2023; 23(7):3549–3564; doi: 10.1007/s10238-023-01089-y

40.

Zhang

, Peng

, Xia

. Autoimmune diseases and gut microbiota: A bibliometric and visual analysis from 2004 to 2022. Clin Exp Med, 2023; 23(6):2813–2827; doi: 10.1007/s10238-023-01028-x

41.

Rajabi

, Jaffe

, Arinzeh

. Piezoelectric materials for tissue regeneration: A review. Acta Biomater, 2015; 24:12–23; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.07.010

42.

Shuai

, Liu

, Yang

, et al. A strawberry-like Ag-decorated barium titanate enhances piezoelectric and antibacterial activities of polymer scaffold. Nano Energy, 2020; 74:104825; doi: 10.1016/j.nanoen.2020.104825

43.

Khare

, Basu

, Dubey

. Electrical stimulation and piezoelectric biomaterials for bone tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials, 2020; 258:120280; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120280

44.

Gorgey

, Trainer

, Sutor

, et al. A case study of percutaneous epidural stimulation to enable motor control in two men after spinal cord injury. Nat Commun, 2023; 14(1):2064; doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37845-7

45.

Zhang

H-Y

, Tang

Y-Y

, Gu

Z-X

, et al. Biodegradable ferroelectric molecular crystal with large piezoelectric response. Science, 2024; 383(6690):1492–1498; doi: 10.1126/science.adj1946

46.

Liu

, Wang

, Gao

, et al. Biodegradable piezoelectric-conductive integrated hydrogel scaffold for repair of osteochondral defects. Adv Mater, 2024; 36(45):e2409400; doi: 10.1002/adma.202409400

47.

Kim

, Shin

, Lim

. Biomimetic scaffolds for tissue engineering. Adv Funct Materials, 2012; 22(12):2446–2468; doi: 10.1002/adfm.201103083

48.

Nain

, Chakraborty

, Barman

, et al. Progress in the development of piezoelectric biomaterials for tissue remodeling. Biomaterials, 2024; 307:122528; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2024.122528

49.

Shi

, Guo

, Wu

, et al. Nano-ZnO/PVDF hybrid film for application in flexible waterproof ultraviolet photodetector. ACS Appl Nano Mater, 2024; 7(20):23494–23503; doi: 10.1021/acsanm.4c03567

50.

, Mo

, Xie

, et al. Self-reinforced piezoelectric chip for scaffold-free repair of critical-sized bone defects. Nat Commun, 2025; 16(1):5800; doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-61243-w

51.

, Wang

, Zhao

, et al. Electrohydrodynamic jet 3D printing of PCL/PVP composite scaffold for cell culture. Talanta, 2020; 211:120750; doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2020.120750

52.

, Cao

, Zhang

, et al. ROS-responsive hydrogels: From design and additive manufacturing to biomedical applications. Mater Horiz, 2024; 11(16):3721–3746; doi: 10.1039/d4mh00289j

53.

, Chen

, Du

, et al. 3D-Printed shape memory and piezoelectric bifunctional thermoplastic Polyurethane/Polyvinylidene fluoride porous composite scaffold for bone regeneration. ACS Biomater Sci Eng, 2024; 10(11):7100–7110; doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.4c01221

54.

Kim

, Rajendran

, Amirthalingam

, et al. Recent technological advances in lab-on-a-chip for bone remodeling. Biosensors and Bioelectronics: X, 2023; 14:100360; doi: 10.1016/j.biosx.2023.100360

55.

Cho

, Beak

, Sagong

, et al. Electrospinning and nanofiber technology: Fundamentals, innovations, and applications. Adv Mater, 2025; 37(28):e2500162; doi: 10.1002/adma.202500162

56.

, Ji

, Li

, et al. Small data machine learning in materials science. Npj Comput Mater, 2023; 9(1):42; doi: 10.1038/s41524-023-01000-z

57.

Heesoo

, Juhyun

, Ung

, et al. Skin preparation–free, stretchable microneedle adhesive patches for reliable electrophysiological sensing and exoskeleton robot control. Sci Adv, 2024; 10(3):eadk5260; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adk5260

58.

Liu

, Bai

, Heng

, et al. Biomimetic electroactive materials and devices for regenerative engineering. Nat Rev Electr Eng, 2025; 2(3):188–204; doi: 10.1038/s44287-025-00145-x

59.

Liu

, Pan

, Chen

, et al. Systematic design of cell membrane coating to improve tumor targeting of nanoparticles. Nat Commun, 2022; 13(1):6181; doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33889-3

60.

Lewis

, Nemke

, Lu

, et al. A bioactive supramolecular and covalent polymer scaffold for cartilage repair in a sheep model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2024; 121(33):e2405454121; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2405454121

61.

Yue

, Zhang

, et al. The role of piezoelectric materials in bone remodeling and repair: Mechanisms and applications. Int J Nanomedicine, 2025; 20:11593–11616; doi: 10.2147/IJN.S535976

62.

Deng

, Zhuang

, Cui

, et al. Open challenges and opportunities in piezoelectricity for tissue regeneration. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2025; 12(38):e10349; doi: 10.1002/advs.202510349

63.

Gao

, Pan

, Dong

, et al. Progress in osteochondral regeneration with engineering strategies. Ann Biomed Eng, 2022; 50(10):1232–1242; doi: 10.1007/s10439-022-03060-6

64.

Guo

, Ma

, Min

, et al. Progress and prospect of technical and regulatory challenges on tissue-engineered cartilage as therapeutic combination product. Bioact Mater, 2023; 20:501–518; doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.06.015

65.

Lammi

, Piltti

, Prittinen

, et al. Challenges in fabrication of tissue-engineered cartilage with correct cellular colonization and extracellular matrix assembly. Int J Mol Sci, 2018; 19(9):2700; doi: 10.3390/ijms19092700