Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37189187›Full record

SynthesisStem cell research & therapy2023

Evaluating the efficacy of human dental pulp stem cells and scaffold combination for bone regeneration in animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amin Namjoynik, Md Asiful Islam, Mohammad Islam

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Stem cell research & therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Editorial: Tissue regeneration using dental stem cells.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amin NamjoynikSchool of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HR, Scotland, UK.
Md Asiful IslamInstitute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Mohammad IslamSchool of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HR, Scotland, UK. m.r.y.islam@dundee.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0792-4540
University of Dundee · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHuman adult dental pulp stem cells (hDPSC) and stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED) hold promise in bone regeneration for their easy accessibility, high proliferation rate, self-renewal and osteogenic differentiation capacity. Various organic and inorganic scaffold materials were pre-seeded with human dental pulp stem cells in animals, with promising outcomes in new bone formation. Nevertheless, the clinical trial for bone regeneration using dental pulp stem cells is still in its infancy. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesise the evidence of the efficacy of human dental pulp stem cells and the scaffold combination for bone regeneration in animal bone defect models. METHODOLOGY: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD2021274976), and PRISMA guideline was followed to include the relevant full-text papers using exclusion and inclusion criteria. Data were extracted for the systematic review. Quality assessment and the risk of bias were also carried out using the CAMARADES tool. Quantitative bone regeneration data of the experimental (scaffold + hDPSC/SHED) and the control (scaffold-only) groups were also extracted for meta-analysis.

resultsForty-nine papers were included for systematic review and only 27 of them were qualified for meta-analysis. 90% of the included papers were assessed as medium to low risk. In the meta-analysis, qualified studies were grouped by the unit of bone regeneration measurement. Overall, bone regeneration was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in experimental group (scaffold + hDPSC/SHED) compared to the control group (scaffold-only) (SMD: 1.863, 95% CI 1.121-2.605). However, the effect is almost entirely driven by the % new bone formation group (SMD: 3.929, 95% CI 2.612-5.246) while % BV/TV (SMD: 2.693, 95% CI - 0.001-5.388) shows a marginal effect. Dogs and hydroxyapatite-containing scaffolds have the highest capacity in % new bone formation in response to human DPSC/SHED. The funnel plot exhibits no apparent asymmetry representing a lack of remarkable publication bias. Sensitivity analysis also indicated that the results generated in this meta-analysis are robust and reliable.

conclusionThis is the first synthesised evidence showing that human DPSCs/SHED and scaffold combination enhanced bone regeneration highly significantly compared to the cell-free scaffold irrespective of scaffold type and animal species used. So, dental pulp stem cells could be a promising tool for treating various bone diseases, and more clinical trials need to be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of dental pulp stem cell-based therapies.

Indexed as

Dental PulpOsteogenesisAdultAnimalsBone RegenerationCell DifferentiationDogsHumansStem Cell TransplantationTissue ScaffoldsBone regenerationDental pulp mesenchymal stem cells, animal bone defect modelMeta-analysisScaffoldsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37189187
PMCPMC10186750
OpenAlexW4376601136

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.