ArticlePolymers2022
Characterization of Dental Pulp Stem Cells Response to Bone Substitutes Biomaterials in Dentistry.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pro-Angiogenic Response to OsteoBiolBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Collagen Formulation in Xenogeneic Bone Substitutes Influences Cellular Responses in Periodontal Regeneration: An In Vitro Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of Different Graft Material Consistencies in the Treatment of Minimal Bone Dehiscence: A Retrospective Pilot Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- The Added Value of a Collagenated Thermosensitive Bone Substitute as a Scaffold for Bone Regeneration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Advances and challenges in regenerative dentistry: A systematic review of calcium phosphate and silicate-based materials on human dental pulp stem cells.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone substitute biomaterials (BSBs) represent a promising alternative to bone autografts, due to their biocompatibility, osteoconduction, slow resorption rates, and the ability to define and maintain volume for bone gain in dentistry. Many biomaterials are tailored to provide structural and biological support for bone regeneration, and allow the migration of bone-forming cells into the bone defect. Neural crest-derived stem cells isolated from human dental pulp (hDPSCs) represent a suitable stem cell source to study the biological effects of BSBs on osteoprogenitor cells involved in the physiological bone regenerative processes. This study aimed to evaluate how three different BSBs affect the stem cell properties, osteogenic differentiation, and inflammatory properties of hDPSCs. Our data highlight that BSBs do not alter cell proliferation and stemness markers expression, nor induce any inflammatory responses. Bone metabolism data show that hDPSCs exposed to the three BSBs distinctively secrete the factors supporting osteoblast activity and osteoclast activity. Our data indicate that (i) hDPSCs are a suitable stem cell source to study the effects of BSBs, and that (ii) the formulation of BSBs may condition the biological properties of stem cells, suggesting their versatile suitability to different dentistry applications.
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.