ReviewBiomedical engineering online2025
Advancements in osteoblast sourcing, isolation, and characterization for dental tissue regeneration: a review.
Review in Biomedical engineering online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral stem cells in combination with hydrogels as biomimetic bioactive platforms for periodontal tissue engineering.Frontiers in oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary osteoblasts are essential for bone formation and regeneration, making them pivotal in dental applications, including periodontal regeneration, ridge augmentation, and implant osseointegration. Sourced from various tissues like alveolar bone, calvarial bone, mandibular and maxillary bones, long bones, and bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs), each type of osteoblast presents unique advantages and limitations related to yield, accessibility, and clinical relevance. Given these variables, selecting an appropriate source is crucial for experimental consistency and translational application in dentistry.
methodsThis review synthesizes data from in vitro, animal, and clinical studies to provide a comprehensive overview of osteoblast sourcing, isolation, and characterization in dental research. Sources were reviewed based on yield, anatomical relevance, and accessibility, while isolation methods were compared to assess their impact on cell behavior and phenotype retention. The review evaluates methods such as enzymatic digestion, explant culture, and differentiation of BMSCs, alongside characterization techniques like morphological analysis, gene expression profiling, and mineralization assays.
resultsThe analysis shows that alveolar bone-derived osteoblasts offer high clinical relevance due to their anatomical similarity to oral structures but are limited by low yield and invasive collection. Calvarial and long bone osteoblasts provide higher yields, making them useful for material testing, though they lack biomechanical compatibility with oral environments. BMSCs offer a renewable source with significant regenerative potential but require precise differentiation protocols. In vitro studies contribute mechanistic insights, while animal models bridge the gap to clinical application, despite challenges in standardization and interspecies variability.
conclusionThis review highlights the importance of selecting appropriate osteoblast sources and methods for dental research to optimize outcomes in periodontal and implant-related therapies. The variability across study designs and experimental outcomes underscores the need for standardized protocols and targeted systematic reviews within specific research settings. These findings offer a framework for future osteoblast-based research and guide the effective translation of osteoblast therapies into clinical dental practice.
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.