ArticleJournal of Yeungnam medical science2026
Therapeutic efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells in periodontal regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
Article in Journal of Yeungnam medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPeriodontitis is a major global health problem that leads to destruction and loss of periodontal tissues. As conventional therapy has a limited capacity to restore the complex architecture of the periodontium, regenerative approaches have been explored. This meta-analysis evaluates the therapeutic efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for periodontal regeneration in patients with periodontal defects.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical trials. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB2. Random- or fixed-effects meta-analyses were used in the pooled analysis and reported as mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).
resultsTen clinical trials were included in the analysis. MSCs significantly improved probing pocket depth (MD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.19; p<0.01; I2=62%), clinical attachment level (MD, -0.75; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.54; p<0.01; I2=40%), cementoenamel junction to the base of defect (MD, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.02; p=0.04; I2=63%), and intrabony defect (MD, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.60 to -0.57; p<0.01; I2=71%). However, no significant improvement in gingival recession was observed (MD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.38 to 0.01; p=0.07; I2=0%). The GRADE assessment indicated a high-to-moderate certainty.
conclusionMSCs represent a promising strategy for periodontal regeneration. Nevertheless, the limited number of studies and the observed heterogeneity warrant cautious interpretation. Larger methodologically rigorous trials are needed to clarify the true contribution of MSCs to periodontal regeneration.
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.