Tissue engineering is a research domain that deals with the growth of various kinds of tissues with the help of synthetic composites. With the culmination of nanotechnology and bioengineering, tissue engineering has emerged as an exciting domain. Recent literature describes its various applications in biomedical and biological sciences, such as facilitating the growth of tissue and organs, gene delivery, biosensor-based detection, etc. It deals with the development of biomimetics to repair, restore, maintain and amplify or strengthen several biological functions at the level of tissue and organs. Herein, the synthesis of nanocomposites based on polymers, along with their classification as conductive hydrogels and bioscaffolds, is comprehensively discussed. Furthermore, their implementation in numerous tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications is also described. The limitations of tissue engineering are also discussed here. The present review highlights and summarizes the latest progress in the tissue engineering domain directed at functionalized nanomaterials.

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) provides higher dose to target volumes and limits the dose to normal tissues. IMRT may be applied using either simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) or sequential boost (SEQ-IMRT) technique. The objectives of this study were to compare acute toxicity and objective response rates between SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: Total 110 patients with locally advanced carcinoma of oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx were randomized equally into the two arms (SIB-IMRT vs. SEQ-IMRT). Patients in SIB-IMRT arm received dose of 66 Gy in 30 fractions, 5 days a week, over 6 weeks. SEQ-IMRT arm’s patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. Weekly concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was given in both arms. Patients were assessed for acute toxicities during the treatment and for objective response at 3 months after the radiotherapy. Results: Grade 3 dysphagia was significantly more with SIB-IMRT compared to SEQ-IMRT (72% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.006) but other toxicities including mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia, weight-loss, incidence of nasogastric tube intubation and hospitalization for supportive management were similar in both the arms. Patients in SIB-IMRT arm showed better treatment-compliance and had significantly less treatment-interruption compared to SEQ-IMRT arm (p = 0.028). Objective response rates were similar in both the arms (p = 0.783). Conclusion Concurrent chemoradiation with SIB-IMRT for locally advanced head and neck cancer is well-tolerated and results in better treatment-compliance, similar objective response rates, comparable incidence of mucositis and higher incidence of grade 3 dysphagia compared to SEQ-IMRT.

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) provides higher dose to target volumes and limits the dose to normal tissues. IMRT may be applied using either simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) or sequential boost (SEQ-IMRT) technique. The objectives of this study were to compare acute toxicity and objective response rates between SIB-IMRT and SEQ-IMRT in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: Total 110 patients with locally advanced carcinoma of oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx were randomized equally into the two arms (SIB-IMRT vs. SEQ-IMRT). Patients in SIB-IMRT arm received dose of 66 Gy in 30 fractions, 5 days a week, over 6 weeks. SEQ-IMRT arm’s patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks. Weekly concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy was given in both arms. Patients were assessed for acute toxicities during the treatment and for objective response at 3 months after the radiotherapy. Results: Grade 3 dysphagia was significantly more with SIB-IMRT compared to SEQ-IMRT (72% vs. 41.2%; p = 0.006) but other toxicities including mucositis, dermatitis, xerostomia, weight-loss, incidence of nasogastric tube intubation and hospitalization for supportive management were similar in both the arms. Patients in SIB-IMRT arm showed better treatment-compliance and had significantly less treatment-interruption compared to SEQ-IMRT arm (p = 0.028). Objective response rates were similar in both the arms (p = 0.783). Conclusion Concurrent chemoradiation with SIB-IMRT for locally advanced head and neck cancer is well-tolerated and results in better treatment-compliance, similar objective response rates, comparable incidence of mucositis and higher incidence of grade 3 dysphagia compared to SEQ-IMRT.