Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33992115›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2021

Comparative evaluation of osteogenic differentiation potential of stem cells derived from dental pulp and exfoliated deciduous teeth cultured over granular hydroxyapatite based scaffold.

Manal Nabil Hagar, Farinawati Yazid, Nur Atmaliya Luchman, Shahrul Hisham Zainal Ariffin, Rohaya Megat Abdul Wahab

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluation ofPeerJ · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manal Nabil HagarDepartment of Family Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Farinawati YazidDepartment of Family Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nur Atmaliya LuchmanDepartment of Family Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Shahrul Hisham Zainal AriffinSchool of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Rohaya Megat Abdul WahabDepartment of Family Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. rohaya_megat@ukm.edu.my.
National University of Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMesenchymal stem cells isolated from the dental pulp of primary and permanent teeth can be differentiated into different cell types including osteoblasts. This study was conducted to compare the morphology and osteogenic potential of stem cells from exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED) and dental pulp stem cells (DPSC) in granular hydroxyapatite scaffold (gHA). Preosteoblast cells (MC3T3-E1) were used as a control group. METHODOLOGY: The expression of stemness markers for DPSC and SHED was evaluated using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Alkaline phosphatase assay was used to compare the osteoblastic differentiation of these cells (2D culture). Then, cells were seeded on the scaffold and incubated for 21 days. Morphology assessment using field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) was done while osteogenic differentiation was detected using ALP assay (3D culture).

resultsThe morphology of cells was mononucleated, fibroblast-like shaped cells with extended cytoplasmic projection. In RT-PCR study, DPSC and SHED expressed GAPDH, CD73, CD105, and CD146 while negatively expressed CD11b, CD34 and CD45. FESEM results showed that by day 21, dental stem cells have a round like morphology which is the morphology of osteoblast as compared to day 7. The osteogenic potential using ALP assay was significantly increased (p < 0.01) in SHED as compared to DPSC and MC3T3-E1 in 2D and 3D cultures.

conclusiongHA scaffold is an optimal scaffold as it induced osteogenesis in vitro. Besides, SHED had the highest osteogenic potential making them a preferred candidate for tissue engineering in comparison with DPSC.

Indexed as

Dental PulpOsteogenesisCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationCells, CulturedDurapatiteStem CellsTooth, DeciduousDurapatiteDental pulp stem cells (DPSC)Granular hydroxyapatite scaffoldMC3T3-E1 cellsOsteogenesisStem cells from exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED)

Identifiers

PMID33992115
PMCPMC8126170
OpenAlexW3163184782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.