ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Induction of Mesenchymal Stem Cell and Preosteoblast Differentiation: A Comparative Study Between Conditioned Medium and In Vitro Coculture.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. 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.
- Induction of Mesenchymal Stem Cell and Preosteoblast Differentiation: A Comparative Study Between Conditioned Medium and In Vitro Coculture.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
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
Objective: To determine and compare the effects on differentiation, proliferation, and morphology of dental pulp-derived mesenchymal stem cells (DPSC) and preosteoblasts (pre-OBs) (Saos-2) that are either cocultured or treated with conditioned medium (CM) in vitro. Materials and Methods: In this experimental in vitro study, DPSC and Saos-2 cells were cocultured either directly-allowing physical contact-or indirectly, using a transwell system. These coculture systems were compared to treatment with CM from these cells over varying time periods. Morphological changes were evaluated using light microscopy, while cell proliferation was assessed with the resazurin colorimetric assay. Osteoblastic differentiation was analyzed by Alizarin Red staining and by quantifying changes in Runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2), osterix (OSX), and osteocalcin (OCN) gene expression via real-time RT-PCR. All experiments were performed in triplicate and data analyzed by Student's Results: Treatment with CM reduced the cell numbers for both cell types, whereas direct and indirect coculture led to an increase in cell numbers after 8 days of treatment. Morphologically, these treatments induced the formation of more elongated cells with greater cellular extensions compared to control groups. All experimental groups exhibited calcium nodule formation and increased relative expression of RUNX2, OSX, and OCN, consistent with induction of osteogenic differentiation. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that both direct and indirect coculture of Saos-2 and DPSC cells, as well as treatment with CM, are effective in inducing morphological changes, proliferation, and osteoblastic differentiation. These strategies may therefore serve as useful tools for research into regenerative therapies aimed at repairing bone defects.
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.