ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2015
Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental Follicle Cells: Roles in Development and Beyond.Stem cells international · 2019Review
- Hydrophilicity, Viscoelastic, and Physicochemical Properties Variations in Dental Bone Grafting Substitutes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental stem cells in combination with implant materials may become an alternative to autologous bone transplants. For tissue engineering different types of soft and rigid implant materials are available, but little is known about the viability and the osteogenic differentiation of dental stem cells on these different types of materials. According to previous studies we proposed that rigid bone substitute materials are superior to soft materials for dental tissue engineering.
methodsWe evaluated the proliferation, the induction of apoptosis and the osteogenic differentiation of dental stem/progenitor cells on a synthetic bone-like material and on an allograft product. The soft materials silicone and polyacrylamide (PA) were used for comparison. Precursor cells from the dental follicle (DFCs) and progenitor cells from the dental apical papilla of retained third molar tooth (dNC-PCs) were applied as dental stem cells in our study.
resultsBoth dental cell types attached and grew on rigid bone substitute materials, but they did not grow on soft materials. Moreover, rigid bone substitute materials only sustained the osteogenic differentiation of dental stem cells, although the allograft product induced apoptosis in both dental cell types. Remarkably, PA, silicone and the synthetic bone substitute material did not induce the apoptosis in dental cells.
conclusionsOur work supports the hypothesis that bone substitute materials are suitable for dental stem cell tissue engineering. Furthermore, we also suggest that the induction of apoptosis by bone substitute materials may not impair the proliferation and the differentiation of dental stem cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.