ArticleHeliyon2024
Osteogenic potency of dental stem cell-composite scaffolds in an animal cleft palate model.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental study on the in vitro osteogenic and chondrogenic ability of fat stem cells combined with 3D-printed porous scaffolds.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Optimized delivery of RNA silencing prolyl hydroxylase domain 2 for enhanced angiogenesis and osteogenesis using bioactive glass scaffolds.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the osteogenic potency of stem cells isolated from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED) in polycaprolactone with gelatin surface modification (PCL-GE) and poly (lactic- Methods: Cleft palate-like lesions were induced in Sprague-Dawley rats by extracting the right maxillary first molars and drilling the intact alveolar bone. Rats were then divided into five groups: Control, PCL-GE, PCL-GE-SHED, PLGA-BG, and PLGA-BG-SHED, and received corresponding composite scaffolds with/without SHED at the extraction site. Tissue samples were collected at 2, 3, and 6 months post-implantation (4 rats per group). Gross and histological analyses were conducted to assess osteoid or bone formation. Immunohistochemistry for osteocalcin and human mitochondria was performed to evaluate bone components and human stem cell viability in the tissue. Results: Bone tissue formation was observed in the PCL-GE and PLGA-BG groups compared to the control, where no bone formation occurred. PLGA-BG scaffolds demonstrated greater bone regeneration potential than PCL-GE over 2-6 months. Additionally, scaffolds with SHED accelerated bone formation compared to scaffolds alone. Osteocalcin expression was detected in all rats, and positive immunoreactivity for human mitochondria was observed in the regenerated bone tissue with PCL-GE-SHED and PLGA-BG-SHED. Conclusion: PCL-GE and PLGA-BG composite scaffolds effectively repaired and regenerated bone tissue in rat cleft palate defects. Moreover, scaffolds supplemented with SHED exhibited enhanced osteogenic potency. Clinical significance: PCL-GE and PLGA-BG scaffolds, augmented with SHED, emerge as promising biomaterial candidates for addressing cleft repair and advancing bone tissue engineering endeavors.
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.