PURPOSE: The aim of this comparative study was to investigate cell-based effective bone engineering and the correlation between the osseointegration of dental implants and tissue-engineered bone using dental pulp stem cells (DPSC), bone marrow stem cells (BMSC), and periosteal cells (PC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first molar and all premolars were extracted from the mandibles of three dogs, and in each dog, six bone defects (three on each side) were prepared with a 10-mm-diameter trephine bur after 4 weeks. Different materials were implanted in the defects and the sites were allowed to heal. The experimental groups were as follows: (1) dog DPSC and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (dDPSC/PRP), (2) dog BMSC and PRP (dBMSC/PRP), (3) dog PC and PRP (dPC/PRP), and (4) control (defect only). Eight weeks later, dental implants were placed in the defects. After another 8 weeks, the amount of bone regeneration was assessed by histologic and histomorphometric analyses (bone-implant contact). RESULTS: The mean bone-implant contact values were 66.7% ± 3.6% for group 1 (dDPSC/PRP), 62.5% ± 3.1% for group 2 (dBMSC/PRP), 39.4% ± 2.4% for group 3 (dPC/PRP), and 30.3% ± 2.6% for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: DPSC showed the highest osteogenic potential and may be a useful cell source for tissue-engineered bone around dental implants.
PURPOSE: The aim of this comparative study was to investigate cell-based effective bone engineering and the correlation between the osseointegration of dental implants and tissue-engineered bone using dental pulp stem cells (DPSC), bone marrow stem cells (BMSC), and periosteal cells (PC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first molar and all premolars were extracted from the mandibles of three dogs, and in each dog, six bone defects (three on each side) were prepared with a 10-mm-diameter trephine bur after 4 weeks. Different materials were implanted in the defects and the sites were allowed to heal. The experimental groups were as follows: (1) dog DPSC and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (dDPSC/PRP), (2) dog BMSC and PRP (dBMSC/PRP), (3) dog PC and PRP (dPC/PRP), and (4) control (defect only). Eight weeks later, dental implants were placed in the defects. After another 8 weeks, the amount of bone regeneration was assessed by histologic and histomorphometric analyses (bone-implant contact). RESULTS: The mean bone-implant contact values were 66.7% ± 3.6% for group 1 (dDPSC/PRP), 62.5% ± 3.1% for group 2 (dBMSC/PRP), 39.4% ± 2.4% for group 3 (dPC/PRP), and 30.3% ± 2.6% for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: DPSC showed the highest osteogenic potential and may be a useful cell source for tissue-engineered bone around dental implants.
Authors: Jinling Ma; Sanne K Both; Fang Yang; Fu-Zhai Cui; Juli Pan; Gert J Meijer; John A Jansen; Jeroen J J P van den Beucken Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Jonas Jensen; David Christian Evar Kraft; Helle Lysdahl; Casper Bindzus Foldager; Muwan Chen; Asger Albæk Kristiansen; Jan Hendrik Duedal Rölfing; Cody Eric Bünger Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Nattharee Chanchareonsook; Rüdiger Junker; Leenaporn Jongpaiboonkit; John A Jansen Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 6.389