Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35269758›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Molecular Biological Comparison of Dental Pulp- and Apical Papilla-Derived Stem Cells.

Martyna Smeda, Kerstin M Galler, Melanie Woelflick, Andreas Rosendahl, Christoph Moehle, Beate Lenhardt, Wolfgang Buchalla, Matthias Widbiller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Research progress of dental pulp regeneration treatment.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Effect of BiosilicateJournal of functional biomaterials · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. A Compilation of Study Models for Dental Pulp Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Martyna SmedaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Kerstin M GallerDepartment of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Melanie WoelflickDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Andreas RosendahlDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Christoph MoehleCenter of Excellence for Fluorescent Bioanalytics (KFB), University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Beate LenhardtDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Wolfgang BuchallaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Matthias WidbillerDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7917-9466

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both the dental pulp and the apical papilla represent a promising source of mesenchymal stem cells for regenerative endodontic protocols. The aim of this study was to outline molecular biological conformities and differences between dental pulp stem cells (DPSC) and stem cells from the apical papilla (SCAP). Thus, cells were isolated from the pulp and the apical papilla of an extracted molar and analyzed for mesenchymal stem cell markers as well as multi-lineage differentiation. During induced osteogenic differentiation, viability, proliferation, and wound healing assays were performed, and secreted signaling molecules were quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Transcriptome-wide gene expression was profiled by microarrays and validated by quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR). Gene regulation was evaluated in the context of culture parameters and functionality. Both cell types expressed mesenchymal stem cell markers and were able to enter various lineages. DPSC and SCAP showed no significant differences in cell viability, proliferation, or migration; however, variations were observed in the profile of secreted molecules. Transcriptome analysis revealed the most significant gene regulation during the differentiation period, and 13 biomarkers were identified whose regulation was essential for both cell types. DPSC and SCAP share many features and their differentiation follows similar patterns. From a molecular biological perspective, both seem to be equally suitable for dental pulp tissue engineering.

Indexed as

Mesenchymal Stem CellsOsteogenesisCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationCells, CulturedDental PapillaDental PulpStem Cellsdental pulp stem cellsmesenchymal stem cellsregenerative endodonticsstem cells of the apical papillatranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID35269758
PMCPMC8910327

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.