ReviewDentistry journal2024
A Systematic Review of Stem Cell Applications in Maxillofacial Regeneration.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical stem cell therapy in oral and craniofacial bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing Healing in Oral Surgical Procedures: A Review on Biomaterials, Growth Factors, and Tissue Engineering.Cureus · 2026Review
- Advanced Biomaterials for Craniofacial Tissue Regeneration: From Fundamental Mechanism to Translational Applications-A Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- CRISPR Genome Editing in Personalized Therapy for Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases: A Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Recent Advances in Bone Tissue Engineering: Enhancing the Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Regenerative Therapies.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRegenerative medicine is revolutionizing oral and maxillofacial surgeries with stem cells, particularly mesenchymal stem cells, for tissue and bone regeneration. Despite promising
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines, this review included peer-reviewed articles (2013-2023) on stem cells in oral surgery, excluding non-English publications, abstracts, reviews, and opinion pieces. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, Cochrane, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source-Ebscohost, and Scopus. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, resolving disagreements by consensus. Full-text analysis involved extracting key data, verified by a secondary reviewer and additional quality checks.
resultsFrom 3540 initial articles, 2528 were screened after removing duplicates, and 7 met the inclusion criteria after excluding irrelevant studies. Key themes included the safety and efficacy of stem cell therapy, and bone regeneration and quality. Studies predominantly used mesenchymal stem cells. Findings showed positive outcomes in clinical safety and effectiveness and significant potential for bone regeneration.
conclusionsThis systematic review highlights the potential of stem cell therapies in maxillofacial applications, supporting their safety, efficacy, and bone regeneration capabilities. Further research is needed to standardize protocols and confirm long-term benefits.
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.