ArticleBMC oral health2025
A comparative study of the epithelial regeneration capacities of two biomaterials in vitro.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Impact of Zirconia and Titanium Implant Surfaces of Different Roughness on Oral Epithelial Cells.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Vitamin DInternational journal of molecular sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegeneration of periodontal epithelium remains a major focus in current dental research, with various exogenous substitute materials being applied in clinical practice. Yet, the highly organized structure of native tissue still poses considerable challenges for biomaterials attempting to mimic the original environment. In this study, we investigated the effects of a newly developed gelatin/polycaprolactone nanofiber (GPF) and a micro-scaled collagen matrix (CM) on the biological behavior of oral epithelial Ca9-22 cells, aiming to assess the clinical applicability of the materials and conducted a preliminary exploration of the interplay between the Ca9-22 cells and the material properties.
methodsThe oral epithelial Ca9-22 cell line was cultured onto the GPF, CM, and tissue culture plate (TCP) for 3, 7, and 14 days. Cell morphology, attachment proliferation/viability, the gene expression of keratin 14 (KRT14), keratin 10 (KRT10), integrin β-1 (ITGB-1), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), interleukin 8 (IL-8) and interleukin 1β (IL-1β), the levels of IL-8 proteins were evaluated.
resultsCa9-22 cells exhibited distinct adhesion morphology and distribution patterns on two biomaterials. After 3 days of culturing on GPF, Ca9-22 cells demonstrated higher levels of proliferation/viability compared to those on CM. In most situations, except KRT10, both materials effectively stimulated gene and protein expression related to epithelial regeneration and wound healing, especially in the early stage of culture. Compared to CM, GPF demonstrated a stronger stimulation of KRT14 expression at day 3 and a more significant enhancement of KRT10 expression after 7 and 14 days. However, it was less effective at promoting IL-8 expression after 3 days than the former. The gene expression of KRT10 was suppressed by CM at day 7. The IL-8 protein production was the highest in cells grown on CM.
conclusionThe morphology and cellular functions of oral epithelial cells differed between GPF and CM. Both materials are capable of promoting epithelial regeneration; however, GPF is more conducive to functional stratification of newly formed epithelium, while CM holds a more sustained effect on epithelial proliferation.
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.