Reviews

Dental pulp stem cells for reconstructing bone defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Reconstruction of bone defects is often a clinical challenge, especially in dentistry. Maxillofacial bone deficiencies result from tooth loss, periodontitis, trauma, tumor removal, congenital anomalies, and radiation-related osteonecrosis. Periodontitis and ridge remodeling following tooth loss is the most common cause of the alveolar bone defect. Successful implant placement requires adequate bone quality and quantity to avoid implant failure; therefore, reconstructing the alveolar ridge is a substantial issue for dental implant-supported prostheses. ^1-3

Autogenous bone grafting is the gold standard for bone regeneration. However, mitigating the complications associated with the harvest of autologous bone was the primary impetus for developing bone graft substitutes. ⁴ Reconstructing bone defects with tissue engineering using dental pulp stem cells or DPSC is one of the most modern rehabilitation methods that can revolutionize future treatments. ⁵

DPSCs can include self-renewal capacity, multilineage differentiation capacity, high proliferation potential, and clonogenic efficacy. These features have made them the most promising mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for clinical purposes. However, many issues and challenges must be addressed before using these cells in clinical treatment. ^6,7

Tissue engineering scaffolds can facilitate the proliferation and differentiation of progenitor cells. Combining osteogenic cells, osteogenic factors, biocompatible scaffolds, and angiogenesis are the elements of bone tissue engineering. Treatment with bone-related factors, gene transfection, and gene overexpression enhances the bone regeneration potential of DPSCs. ^5,8

Due to the limited clinical trials conducted in the field of bone regeneration by DPSCs, they have not yet been effectively used in clinical treatments. Further investigation of the studies conducted in this field will lead to achieving suitable study designs and, ultimately, the progress of therapy using DPSCs. Since the quantitative evaluation of bone regeneration by DPSCs has not been carefully evaluated in the previous systematic reviews, this study aimed to evaluate the potential of DPSCs in clinical and preclinical bone regeneration from a quantitative point of view. For this purpose, this review study analyzed the amount of bone volume and bone area regenerated by DPSCs.

Methods

Protocol

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement ⁹ was the protocol of this systematic review.

Focus questions

The objective of this study was to review the literature to answer the focused question systematically:

Do DPSCs improve the quantitative results of bone regeneration?

Which samples, scaffold type, final follow-up, and defect type significantly impact bone regeneration?

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria for the selection were:

In vivo studies, bone defect regeneration therapy utilizing DPSCs, studies reporting quantitative data in the form of new bone volume percentage or new bone area percentage, and studies published in the English language.

The exclusion criteria for the selection were:

Studies reporting only qualitative results of bone regeneration

In studies where the results of bone regeneration had been reported quantitatively, the exclusion criteria were these items:

Standard deviations were not apparent, the numbers of samples were not reported, the created bone defects were not filled by scaffolds seeded with DPSCs in the test group, and an acellular scaffold did not fill the created bone defects in the control group.

Information sources

Electronic searches were completed for articles in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus databases until 21 April 2022. Also, related systematic references were added.

Search strategy

The search strategy was: “regenerate *” AND “bone*” AND (“stem” or “pulp”), AND “cell.”

Selection process

The studies were evaluated by two reviewers separately (NM and FO), and the third reviewer (FE) reviewed the differences.

Data collection process

Two reviewers (NM and FO) collected data from each report independently.

Data items

The list and definition of outcomes are as follows:

“Author-year” specifies the author and year of publication.

“Sample” specifies the type of animals with bone defects.

“Number” specifies the total number of test and control group samples.

“Site and size of bone defects” specifies the type of the created bone defects and their dimensions or the dimensions of the bur used.

“Final follow-up” specifies the final duration of treatment by week.

“Laboratory method” specifies the laboratory method.

“Scaffold” specifies the scaffold used.

“Regenerated bone area” specifies the study outcome based on bone area percentage. The results of the test and control groups for each study are stated in this column. In the test group, the defect was filled by scaffolds seeded with DPSCs, and in the control group, the defect was supplied with an acellular scaffold.

“Regenerated bone volume” specifies the study outcome based on bone volume percentage. The results of the test and control groups for each study are stated in this column. In the test group, the defect was filled by scaffolds seeded with DPSCs, and in the control group, the defect was supplied by an acellular scaffold.

Study risk of bias assessment

Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. ¹⁰ The criteria used were as follows: random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), and other sources of bias.

The classification of studies based on seven criteria of risk of bias assessment was as follows:

A study had a low risk of bias if it had none of the types of preferences, a study had a moderate risk of bias if it had one of the types of bigotry, and a study had a high risk of bias if it has more than one type of bias.

Statistical analysis

Review Manager (RevMan, Computer program, Version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was used for statistical analysis. Separate meta-analyses were performed according to regenerated bone volume and area. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed according to the sample, defect, follow-up, and scaffold types.

Meta-analyses were performed using the Z test with random effects weighted inverse variance method. The effect size was measured using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals. SMD < 0.2 was considered a ‘small’ effect size, SMD between 0.2 and 0.8 represented a ‘medium’ effect size, and SMD > 0.8 was considered a ‘large’ effect size. The results were considered significant when P < 0.05. The heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test. If I² was > 75%, it was interpreted as highly heterogeneous.

Results

Study selection

A total of 762 records were identified through database searches. After removing duplicate articles, in vitro articles, review articles, and articles that did not investigate bone tissue regeneration, the full texts of 78 studies were reviewed. The reasons for excluding studies after a full-text assessment were as follows: The quantitative data were not reported (n = 27) ^11-37 ; the percentage of new bone volume or new bone area was not reported (n = 9) ^38-46 ; the number of the samples was not reported (n = 2) ^47,48 ; stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth were used as MSCs (n = 2) ^49,50 ; the created bone defects in the test group were not filled by scaffolds seeded with DPSCs (n = 10)^51–59; and the created bone defects in the control group were not filled by an acellular staging (n = 5). ^60-64 Finally, 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. ^65-87 shows the flow chart.

Close

Figure 1. Flow diagram for included searches of databases.Abbreviations: MSCs: mesenchymal stem cells; SHEDs: stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth

Study characteristics

The samples used in the studies were rats in 9 studies, ^{65,67,69,71,74,76,78,79,85} mice in 5 studies, ^{80,81,83,84,87} rabbits in 4 studies, ^72,77,78,82 sheep in 2 studies, ^68,70 and pigs in 2 studies. ^73,86

The bone defects were created in the cranium in 15 studies, ^{65,67,68-72,74,79,80,82-84,86} in the mandible in 2 studies, ^67,73 in the alveolar bone in 4 studies, ^68,69,78,86 and in the femur in 2 studies. ^70,80 Dimensions of defect, Scaffolding used, and final follow-up varied across studies.

The results were in the form of a new bone area in 10 studies ^{65,68,70,71,73,74,76,78,79,84} and new bone volume in 7 studies. ^{69,75,80,81,83,85,86}

Six studies reported outcomes in both forms. ^{66,67,72,77,82,87} Table 1 shows the study characteristics.

Risk of bias in studies

In this category, 2, 8, and 13 articles showed a low, medium, and high risk of bias, respectively. and show reviewing authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item presented.

Close

Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: reviewing authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

Close

Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: reviewing authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study

Analysis based on new bone area percentage

Seventeen studies reported results based on bone area percentage. ^{65,66,67,69,71,74–82,84–86} Study results were highly heterogeneous. Bone formation was significantly enhanced in the test groups compared to the control groups (P < 0.00001, SMD = 2.40, 95% CI: 1.55‒3.26; participants = 289; studies = 17; I² = 83%) ( and ).

Close

Figure 4. Forest plot for new bone area measures

Close

Figure 5. Funnel plot for new bone area measures

Subgroup analyses showed a statistically significant difference in bone regeneration with different scaffold and defect types. The granular deproteinized bovine bone group enhanced bone regeneration the most (SMD = 12.99 [95% CI: 9.52‒16.46]). However, only one study formed this subgroup, and thus this result has low statistical power (). The alveolar bone defect subgroup had the biggest and significantly different effect size compared to other defect types ( ). The SMDs in the alveolar and mandibular bone defect subgroup were 9.73 ([95% CI: 3.65‒15.89], studies = 2) and 6.46 ([95% CI: 0.69‒12.23], studies = 2), respectively, higher than that in the calvarium bone defect subgroup (SMD = 1.39 [95% CI: 0.84‒1.95], studies = 12) ().

Close

Figure 6. Forest plot for new bone area measures stratified by scaffold type

Close

Figure 7. Forest plot for new bone area measures stratified by defect type

There were no significant differences in final follow-up and sample types. The most positive impact on bone regeneration occurred in groups where the final follow-up was six weeks, and the sheep were used as samples ( and ). The outcome of sample types subgroup analysis without considering the subgroups including less than two studies was as follows: The biggest SMD occurred in the rat subgroup (SMD = 2.19 [95% CI: 1.05‒3.33], studies = 6), and the smallest SMD occurred in the rabbit subgroup (SMD = 0.97 [95% CI: 0.10‒1.84], studies = 5) ().

Close

Figure 8. Forest plot for new bone area measures stratified by animal type

Close

Figure 9. Forest plot for new bone area measures stratified by final follow-up

Analysis based on new bone volume percentage

Fourteen studies reported results based on new bone volume percentage. ^{66,67,68-70,72-75,77,80,83,87} Study results were highly heterogeneous. Bone formation was significantly enhanced in the test groups compared to the control groups (P < 00001, SMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 0.85‒2.85; participants = 205; studies = 14; I² = 84%) ( and ). All the studies showed a net positive effect of DPSCs therapy on bone treatment outcomes. However, two study subgroups ^77,83 reported a negative effect compared to the control groups.

Close

Figure 10. Forest plot for new bone volume measures

Close

Figure 11. Funnel plot for new bone volume measures

Subgroup analyses showed a significant difference in bone regeneration with all the subgroups. However, all the subgroups had only one to two studies, indicating low statistical power. In addition, subgroup analyses showed high heterogeneity (, , , and ).

Close

Figure 12. Forest plot for new bone volume measures stratified by animal type

Close

Figure 13. Forest plot for new bone volume measures stratified by defect type

Close

Figure 14. Forest plot for new bone volume measures stratified by the final follow-up

Close

Figure 15. Forest plot for new bone volume measures stratified by scaffold type

Subgroup analyses showed that the most positive impact on bone regeneration occurred in groups where bone defects were created in the alveolar bone, and the pigs were used as samples ( and ). More precisely, the outcomes of subgroup analyses without considering subgroups including less than two studies were as follows: The SMD in the alveolar bone defect subgroup (SMD = 8.48 [95% CI: -4.03‒20.96], studies = 2) was higher than that in the calvarium bone defect subgroup (SMD = 1.58 [95% CI: 0.47‒2.69], studies = 10) (). In the sample type subgroups, the SMDs in the rat, rabbit, and mice subgroups were 4.01 ([95% CI: 2.99‒5.03], studies = 3), 1.15 ([95% CI: -0.16‒2.45], studies = 5), and 0.94 ([95% CI: -0.36‒2.24], studies = 5), respectively ().

The most significant positive impact on bone regeneration occurred in groups where the final follow-up was 12 weeks, and hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate (HA-TCP) was used as a scaffold ( and ).

Reporting biases

There was a possibility of bias due to the small number of studies. Also, the funnel plots of the new bone area and new bone volume indicated an asymmetrical shape. The asymmetrical shape might have been caused by publication bias, study heterogeneity, and methodological anomaly ( and ).

Discussion

Bone tissue engineering by DPSCs has been the subject of many studies as a method that could have a promising future in alveolar ridge reconstruction. However, despite many advances in this field, the high heterogeneity of studies and the few studies with complete statistical data make high-power statistical analysis impossible and the clinical application and effectiveness of stem cell utilization unclear.

This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of tissue engineering by DPSCs on bone regeneration based on the new bone volume and new bone area formation. Two previous systematic reviews ^6,88 mentioned a positive impact of tissue engineering by DPSCs on bone regeneration based on qualitative data. The present study is the first to evaluate the effect of tissue engineering by DPSCs on bone regeneration based on quantitative data.

According to this review, DPSCs and scaffold complexes significantly increase bone regeneration. Clinical diversity and high methodological heterogeneity should be considered in the interpretation of the meta-analysis. Analyses were performed in the subgroups of sample type, scaffold type, final follow-up and defect types. Although heterogeneity decreased in the majority of subgroup analyses, a few studies in subgroups caused the low statistical power of meta-analysis. Nonetheless, the use of DPSCs and scaffold caused a significant increase in the reconstruction of bone defects.

In addition, it is necessary to pay attention to this point that this meta-analysis has not reviewed the impact of other factors, such as growth factors, on bone regeneration. Bone-related factors, gene transfection, and gene overexpression enhance the bone regeneration potential of DPSCs. ^5,8 However, meta-analysis was impossible due to the high heterogeneity of methodology in the studies examining these factors’ impact on bone tissue engineering. Therefore, we can expect a more significant amount of bone regeneration by DPSCs with the application of growth factors, gene transfection, and gene overexpression.

Using growth factors such as tetrahydroxystilbene glucoside, ⁶⁹ rhBMP-2, ⁷⁸ and osteogenic culture medium ⁴⁸ increased bone regeneration. In addition, overexpression of SIRT1, Runx2, EphrinB2, and DPSCs derived from PN3 Wnt1-CRE-Rosa^Tomato mouse molar in separate studies ^51-53 showed a significant increase in bone regeneration.

Compared to other stem cells, studies comparing the ability of DPSCs to bone marrow MSCs did not show a significant difference in bone regeneration. ^47,50,66,89 However, evaluation of the osteogenic potential of adipose tissue-derived stem cells ⁶⁷ and amniotic fluid stem cells ⁷⁶ showed a significant increase in bone regeneration compared to DPSCs.

Overall, using DPSCs with appropriate scaffold, growth factor, and gene therapy will result in the maximum bone regeneration percentage. Finally, as mentioned in previous systematic reviews, bone tissue engineering can be expected to result in a favorable clinical outcome. ^6,88

Few clinical studies examined bone reconstruction in Mansfield. ^{38-40,43,90,91} Most of these studies have reported new bone regeneration based on probing depth and clinical attachment loss. Future clinical trials should also evaluate the extent of bone regeneration in other ways, such as micro-computed tomography.

Future research should concentrate on humans or samples closer to humans, such as dogs and sheep, than on mice and rats. The results should be in the form of statistical data such as bone volume, trabecular number, bone mineral density, and mineral content.

The new bone formation could include maxillary or mandibular bone defects rather than cranium or subcutaneous ones. Future research should compare the effect of different growth factors, scaffolds, and gene overexpression on bone regeneration.

Conclusion

Bone tissue engineering by DPSC is one of the promising ways for bone regeneration in the future. This study was designed in response to the question of whether the current clinical studies quantitatively indicate the ability of DPSC to regenerate bone properly. In this review article, the meta-analysis conducted on the results of the studies showed a significant increase in the amount of bone regenerated by DPSCs. It also showed a ‘large’ effect size by DPSC on bone regeneration. However, more studies in the future will provide the possibility of meta-analysis with more power. Furthermore, to achieve the best method of transplanting DPSCs in bone tissue engineering, future studies should compare the effects of growth factors, types of biological scaffolds, and other factors affecting bone regeneration by DPSCs. Therefore, more preclinical and clinical studies should be conducted in this field to overcome the clinical challenges of tissue engineering by DPSCs.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant [No: 456197] from Birjand University of Medical Sciences (BUMS), Birjand, Iran.

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tissue-engineered bone using mesenchymal stem cells versus conventional bone grafts in the regeneration of maxillary alveolar bone: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020; 35(1):79-90. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7682 [Crossref]
2. Bone quality and quantity and dental implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30(3):219-37. doi: 10.11607/ijp.5142 [Crossref]
3. Clinical outcomes of vertical bone augmentation to enable dental implant placement: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35(8 Suppl):203-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01271.x [Crossref]
4. Cell therapy for orofacial bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 Suppl 21:162-82. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13049 [Crossref]
5. Osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells from dental bud: role of integrins and cadherins. Stem Cell Res 2015; 15(3):618-28. doi: 10.1016/j.scr.2015.09.011 [Crossref]
6. Dental pulp stem cells for in vivo bone regeneration: a systematic review of literature. Arch Oral Biol 2013; 58(12):1818-27. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.08.011 [Crossref]
7. Bone tissue engineering in oral peri-implant defects in preclinical in vivo research: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2018; 12(1):e336-e49. doi: 10.1002/term.2412 [Crossref]
8. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering scaffolds: a review. RSC Adv 2019; 9(45):26252-62. doi: 10.1039/c9ra05214c [Crossref]
9. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [Crossref]
10. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928 [Crossref]
11. Transplantation of stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth for bone regeneration in the dog mandibular defect. World J Stem Cells 2014; 6(4):505-10. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v6.i4.505 [Crossref]
12. Reconstruction of large cranial defects in nonimmunosuppressed experimental design with human dental pulp stem cells. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19(1):204-10. doi: 10.1097/scs.0b013e31815c8a54 [Crossref]
13. Basic fibroblastic growth factor affects the osteogenic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells in a treatment-dependent manner. Int Endod J 2015; 48(7):690-700. doi: 10.1111/iej.12368 [Crossref]
14. Hard tissue formation in a porous HA/TCP ceramic scaffold loaded with stromal cells derived from dental pulp and bone marrow. Tissue Eng Part A 2008; 14(2):285-94. doi: 10.1089/tea.2007.0146 [Crossref]
15. Mesenchymal progenitor cells in adult human dental pulp and their ability to form bone when transplanted into immunocompromised mice. Cell Biol Int 2007; 31(10):1191-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cellbi.2007.04.001 [Crossref]
16. SHED: stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100(10):5807-12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0937635100 [Crossref]
17. Neural crest stem cell property of apical pulp cells derived from human developing tooth. Cell Biol Int 2012; 36(10):927-36. doi: 10.1042/cbi20110506 [Crossref]
18. Donor age-related biological properties of human dental pulp stem cells change in nanostructured scaffolds. PLoS One 2012; 7(11):e49146. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049146 [Crossref]
19. Hard tissue regeneration capacity of apical pulp derived cells (APDCs) from human tooth with immature apex. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2008; 371(1):90-3. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.04.016 [Crossref]
20. Ectopic hard tissue formation by odonto/osteogenically in vitro differentiated human deciduous teeth pulp stem cells. Calcif Tissue Int 2015; 97(1):80-9. doi: 10.1007/s00223-015-9989-1 [Crossref]
21. The circular RNA circRNA124534 promotes osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells through modulation of the miR-496/β-catenin pathway. Front Cell Dev Biol 2020; 8:230. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.00230 [Crossref]
22. Nanofiber scaffolds support bone regeneration associated with pulp stem cells. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther 2014; 9(4):330-7. doi: 10.2174/1574888x09666140228123911 [Crossref]
23. Nanofibrous asymmetric collagen/curcumin membrane containing aspirin-loaded PLGA nanoparticles for guided bone regeneration. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1):18200. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75454-2 [Crossref]
24. Human postnatal dental pulp cells co-differentiate into osteoblasts and endotheliocytes: a pivotal synergy leading to adult bone tissue formation. Cell Death Differ 2007; 14(6):1162-71. doi: 10.1038/sj.cdd.4402121 [Crossref]
25. Effects of basic fibroblast growth factor on the development of the stem cell properties of human dental pulp cells. Arch Histol Cytol 2009; 72(1):51-64. doi: 10.1679/aohc.72.51 [Crossref]
26. Bioactive nano-fibrous scaffold for vascularized craniofacial bone regeneration. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2018; 12(3):e1537-e48. doi: 10.1002/term.2579 [Crossref]
27. Successful transplant of mesenchymal stem cells in induced osteonecrosis of the ovine femoral head: preliminary results. Acta Cir Bras 2010; 25(5):416-22. doi: 10.1590/s0102-86502010000500006 [Crossref]
28. A new population of human adult dental pulp stem cells: a useful source of living autologous fibrous bone tissue (LAB). J Bone Miner Res 2005; 20(8):1394-402. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.050325 [Crossref]
29. Long-term cryopreservation of dental pulp stem cells (SBP-DPSCs) and their differentiated osteoblasts: a cell source for tissue repair. J Cell Physiol 2006; 208(2):319-25. doi: 10.1002/jcp.20667 [Crossref]
30. In vitro bone production using stem cells derived from human dental pulp. J Craniofac Surg 2006; 17(3):511-5. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200605000-00021 [Crossref]
31. Circular RNA SIPA1L1 promotes osteogenesis via regulating the miR-617/Smad3 axis in dental pulp stem cells. Stem Cell Res Ther 2020; 11(1):364. doi: 10.1186/s13287-020-01877-3 [Crossref]
32. Intrafibrillar-silicified collagen scaffolds enhance the osteogenic capacity of human dental pulp stem cells. J Dent 2014; 42(7):839-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.016 [Crossref]
33. Comparing bone tissue engineering efficacy of HDPSCs, HBMSCs on 3D biomimetic ABM-P-15 scaffolds in vitro and in vivo. Cytotechnology 2020; 72(5):715-30. doi: 10.1007/s10616-020-00414-7 [Crossref]
34. Black phosphorus hydrogel scaffolds enhance bone regeneration via a sustained supply of calcium-free phosphorus. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2019; 11(3):2908-16. doi: 10.1021/acsami.8b21179 [Crossref]
35. Improved osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells in a layer-by-layer-modified gelatin scaffold. J Biomater Appl 2018; 33(4):477-87. doi: 10.1177/0885328218799162 [Crossref]
36. Human dental pulp stem cell is a promising autologous seed cell for bone tissue engineering. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124(23):4022-8. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2011.23.033 [Crossref]
37. Fibroin scaffold repairs critical-size bone defects in vivo supported by human amniotic fluid and dental pulp stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A 2012; 18(9-10):1006-13. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2011.0542 [Crossref]
38. Regenerative treatment of periodontal intrabony defects using autologous dental pulp stem cells: a 1-year follow-up case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2018; 38(1):51-8. doi: 10.11607/prd.3425 [Crossref]
39. In vitro and in vivo differentiation of progenitor stem cells obtained after mechanical digestion of human dental pulp. J Cell Physiol 2017; 232(3):548-55. doi: 10.1002/jcp.25452 [Crossref]
40. Retrieval of a periodontally compromised tooth by allogeneic grafting of mesenchymal stem cells from dental pulp: a case report. J Int Med Res 2018; 46(7):2983-93. doi: 10.1177/0300060518773244 [Crossref]
41. Treatment of periodontal bone defects with stem cells from inflammatory dental pulp tissues in miniature swine. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2019; 16(2):191-200. doi: 10.1007/s13770-018-00175-7 [Crossref]
42. Progress in the development of lipopolyplexes as efficient non-viral gene delivery systems. J Control Release 2016; 236:1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.06.023 [Crossref]
43. Human intrabony defect regeneration with micrografts containing dental pulp stem cells: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45(7):841-50. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12931 [Crossref]
44. The influence of Aloe vera with mesenchymal stem cells from dental pulp on bone regeneration: characterization and treatment of non-critical defects of the tibia in rats. J Appl Oral Sci 2019; 27:e20180103. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0103 [Crossref]
45. Chrysin induces osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells. Exp Cell Res 2021; 400(2):112466. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2020.112466 [Crossref]
46. Mesenchymal stem cells and three-dimensional-osteoconductive scaffold regenerate calvarial bone in critical size defects in swine. Stem Cells Transl Med 2021; 10(8):1170-83. doi: 10.1002/sctm.20-0534 [Crossref]
47. Promising cell-based therapy for bone regeneration using stem cells from deciduous teeth, dental pulp, and bone marrow. Cell Transplant 2011; 20(7):1003-13. doi: 10.3727/096368910x539128 [Crossref]
48. Engineering bone formation from human dental pulp- and periodontal ligament-derived cells. Ann Biomed Eng 2011; 39(1):26-34. doi: 10.1007/s10439-010-0115-2 [Crossref]
49. Priming dental pulp stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth with fibroblast growth factor-2 enhances mineralization within tissue-engineered constructs implanted in craniofacial bone defects. Stem Cells Transl Med 2019; 8(8):844-57. doi: 10.1002/sctm.18-0182 [Crossref]
50. SHED repair critical-size calvarial defects in mice. Oral Dis 2008; 14(5):428-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2007.01396.x [Crossref]
51. Runx2 modified dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) enhance new bone formation during rapid distraction osteogenesis (DO). Differentiation 2016; 92(4):195-203. doi: 10.1016/j.diff.2016.06.001 [Crossref]
52. EphrinB2 overexpression enhances osteogenic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells partially through ephrinB2-mediated reverse signaling. Stem Cell Res Ther 2020; 11(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s13287-019-1540-2 [Crossref]
53. Mouse Wnt1-CRE-Rosa(tomato) dental pulp stem cells directly contribute to the calvarial bone regeneration process. Stem Cells 2019; 37(5):701-11. doi: 10.1002/stem.2973 [Crossref]
54. Novel magnetic calcium phosphate-stem cell construct with magnetic field enhances osteogenic differentiation and bone tissue engineering. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2019; 98:30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2018.12.120 [Crossref]
55. Mineralized tissue formation by BMP2-transfected pulp stem cells. J Dent Res 2009; 88(11):1020-5. doi: 10.1177/0022034509346258 [Crossref]
56. In vivo osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells embedded in an injectable in vivo-forming hydrogel. Macromol Biosci 2016; 16(8):1158-69. doi: 10.1002/mabi.201600001 [Crossref]
57. Efficacy of extracellular vesicles from dental pulp stem cells for bone regeneration in rat calvarial bone defects. Inflamm Regen 2021; 41(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s41232-021-00163-w [Crossref]
58. Incorporation of calcium sulfate dihydrate into a mesoporous calcium silicate/poly-ε-caprolactone scaffold to regulate the release of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and accelerate bone regeneration. Biomedicines 2021; 9(2):128. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9020128 [Crossref]
59. Berberine-releasing electrospun scaffold induces osteogenic differentiation of DPSCs and accelerates bone repair. Sci Rep 2021; 11(1):1027. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79734-9 [Crossref]
60. In vivo regeneration of mineralized bone tissue in anisotropic biomimetic sponges. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2020; 8:587. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00587 [Crossref]
61. Bionanocomposite scaffolds based on chitosan-gelatin and nanodimensional bioactive glass particles: in vitro properties and in vivo bone regeneration. J Biomater Appl 2018; 32(9):1155-63. doi: 10.1177/0885328218759042 [Crossref]
62. The angiogenic potential of DPSCs and SCAPs in an in vivo model of dental pulp regeneration. Stem Cells Int 2017; 2017:2582080. doi: 10.1155/2017/2582080 [Crossref]
63. Extracellular matrix/amorphous magnesium phosphate bioink for 3D bioprinting of craniomaxillofacial bone tissue. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2020; 12(21):23752-63. doi: 10.1021/acsami.0c05311 [Crossref]
64. Periodontal regeneration in swine after cell injection and cell sheet transplantation of human dental pulp stem cells following good manufacturing practice. Stem Cell Res Ther 2016; 7(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s13287-016-0362-8 [Crossref]
65. Human recombinant cementum protein 1, dental pulp stem cells, and PLGA/hydroxyapatite scaffold as substitute biomaterial in critical size osseous defect repair in vivo. Arch Oral Biol 2022; 137:105392. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2022.105392 [Crossref]
66. Comparing the osteogenic potentials and bone regeneration capacities of bone marrow and dental pulp mesenchymal stem cells in a rabbit calvarial bone defect model. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20(20):5015. doi: 10.3390/ijms20205015 [Crossref]
67. Comparative characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from human dental pulp and adipose tissue for bone regeneration potential. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol 2019; 47(1):1577-84. doi: 10.1080/21691401.2019.1594861 [Crossref]
68. Vertical ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration procedure and dental pulp derived mesenchymal stem cells with simultaneous dental implant placement: a histologic study in a sheep model. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 120(3):216-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2018.12.011 [Crossref]
69. Dental pulp stem cell transplantation with 2,3,5,4’-tetrahydroxystilbene-2-O-β-D-glucoside accelerates alveolar bone regeneration in rats. J Endod 2019; 45(4):435-41. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.12.019 [Crossref]
70. Dental pulp stem cells and Bonelike® for bone regeneration in ovine model. Regen Biomater 2019; 6(1):49-59. doi: 10.1093/rb/rby025 [Crossref]
71. Aspirin promotes osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells. Int J Mol Med 2018; 42(4):1967-76. doi: 10.3892/ijmm.2018.3801 [Crossref]
72. Assessment of bone regeneration of a tissue-engineered bone complex using human dental pulp stem cells/poly(ε-caprolactone)-biphasic calcium phosphate scaffold constructs in rabbit calvarial defects. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2017; 28(5):77. doi: 10.1007/s10856-017-5883-x [Crossref]
73. An in vivo swine study for xeno-grafts of calcium sulfate-based bone grafts with human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs). Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2015; 50:19-23. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2015.01.092 [Crossref]
74. Bone regeneration in critical-size calvarial defects using human dental pulp cells in an extracellular matrix-based scaffold. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43(4):483-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.02.003 [Crossref]
75. Micro-CT and PET analysis of bone regeneration induced by biodegradable scaffolds as carriers for dental pulp stem cells in a rat model of calvarial “critical size” defect: preliminary data. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2014; 102(4):815-25. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33064 [Crossref]
76. Human amniotic fluid-derived and dental pulp-derived stem cells seeded into collagen scaffold repair critical-size bone defects promoting vascularization. Stem Cell Res Ther 2013; 4(3):53. doi: 10.1186/scrt203 [Crossref]
77. Melatonin enhances osteogenic differentiation of dental pulp mesenchymal stem cells by regulating MAPK pathways and promotes the efficiency of bone regeneration in calvarial bone defects. Stem Cell Res Ther 2022; 13(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13287-022-02744-z [Crossref]
78. Reconstruction of alveolar bone defects using bone morphogenetic protein 2 mediated rabbit dental pulp stem cells seeded on nano-hydroxyapatite/collagen/poly(L-lactide). Tissue Eng Part A 2011; 17(19-20):2417-33. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2010.0620 [Crossref]
79. Human serum promotes osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells in vitro and in vivo. PLoS One 2012; 7(11):e50542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050542 [Crossref]
80. Effectiveness of dental pulp-derived stem cells and bone marrowderived mesenchymal stromal cells implanted into a murine critical bone defect. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther 2022; 17(5):480-91. doi: 10.2174/1574888x17666220215100732 [Crossref]
81. Combining sclerostin neutralization with tissue engineering: an improved strategy for craniofacial bone repair. Acta Biomater 2022; 140:178-89. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.11.046 [Crossref]
82. Effect of different bone grafting materials and mesenchymal stem cells on bone regeneration: a micro-computed tomography and histomorphometric study in a rabbit calvarial defect model. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22(15):8101. doi: 10.3390/ijms22158101 [Crossref]
83. Acellular dense collagen-S53P4 bioactive glass hybrid gel scaffolds form more bone than stem cell delivered constructs. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2021; 120:111743. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2020.111743 [Crossref]
84. Early angiogenesis detected by PET imaging with 64Cu-NODAGA-RGD is predictive of bone critical defect repair. Acta Biomater 2018; 82:111-21. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.10.008 [Crossref]
85. Accelerated craniofacial bone regeneration through dense collagen gel scaffolds seeded with dental pulp stem cells. Sci Rep 2016; 6:38814. doi: 10.1038/srep38814 [Crossref]
86. Adenovirus-mediated transfer of hepatocyte growth factor gene to human dental pulp stem cells under good manufacturing practice improves their potential for periodontal regeneration in swine. Stem Cell Res Ther 2015; 6:249. doi: 10.1186/s13287-015-0244-5 [Crossref]
87. Bovine-derived xenografts immobilized with cryopreserved stem cells from human adipose and dental pulp tissues promote bone regeneration: a radiographic and histological study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2021; 9:646690. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.646690 [Crossref]
88. The use of human dental pulp stem cells for in vivo bone tissue engineering: a systematic review. J Tissue Eng 2018; 9:2041731417752766. doi: 10.1177/2041731417752766 [Crossref]
89. Comparison of the bone regeneration ability between stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth, human dental pulp stem cells and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2018; 497(3):876-82. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.02.156 [Crossref]
90. Repair of human periodontal bone defects by autologous grafting stem cells derived from inflammatory dental pulp tissues. Stem Cell Res Ther 2016; 7(1):141. doi: 10.1186/s13287-016-0404-2 [Crossref]
91. Human mandible bone defect repair by the grafting of dental pulp stem/progenitor cells and collagen sponge biocomplexes. Eur Cell Mater 2009; 18:75-83. doi: 10.22203/ecm.v018a07 [Crossref]