ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2021
Regenerative Potential of Mandibular Condyle Cartilage and Bone Cells Compared to Costal Cartilage Cells When Seeded in Novel Gelatin Based Hydrogels.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Zirconia/dental pulp stem cell composite scaffolds repair osteogenic defect via regulating macrophages.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Chondrogenic potential of superficial versus cartilage layer cells of the temporomandibular joint condyle in photopolymerizable gelatin-based hydrogels.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2024Article
- Excessive load promotes temporomandibular joint chondrocyte apoptosis via Piezo1/endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The field of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) condyle regeneration is hampered by a limited understanding of the phenotype and regeneration potential of cells in mandibular condyle cartilage. It has been shown that chondrocytes derived from hyaline and costal cartilage exhibit a greater chondro-regenerative potential in vitro than those from mandibular condylar cartilage. However, our recent in vivo studies suggest that mandibular condyle cartilage cells do have the potential for cartilage regeneration in osteochondral defects, but that bone regeneration is inadequate. The objective of this study was to determine the regeneration potential of cartilage and bone cells from goat mandibular condyles in two different photocrosslinkable hydrogel systems, PGH and methacrylated gelatin, compared to the well-studied costal chondrocytes. PGH is composed of methacrylated poly(ethylene glycol), gelatin, and heparin. Histology, biochemistry and unconfined compression testing was performed after 4 weeks of culture. For bone derived cells, histology showed that PGH inhibited mineralization, while gelatin supported it. For chondrocytes, costal chondrocytes had robust glycosaminoglycan (GAG) deposition in both PGH and gelatin, and compression properties on par with native condylar cartilage in gelatin. However, they showed signs of hypertrophy in gelatin but not PGH. Conversely, mandibular condyle cartilage chondrocytes only had high GAG deposition in gelatin but not in PGH. These appeared to remain dormant in PGH. These results show that mandibular condyle cartilage cells do have innate regeneration potential but that they are more sensitive to hydrogel material than costal cartilage 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.