Siddharth Shanbhag1, Salwa Suliman1, Nikolaos Pandis2, Andreas Stavropoulos3, Mariano Sanz4, Kamal Mustafa1. 1. Department of Clinical Dentistry, Center for Clinical Dental Research, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 2. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. 4. Section of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
AIM: The objective of the present review was to answer the focused question: what is the effect of cell therapy in terms of orofacial bone regeneration compared to grafting with only biomaterial scaffolds and/or autogenous bone? METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for relevant controlled clinical and pre-clinical (large-animal) studies. Separate meta-analyses of quantitative data regarding histological or radiographic new bone formation were performed. RESULTS: Forty-seven eligible clinical and 57 pre-clinical studies were included. Clinical studies were categorized based on the use of "minimally manipulated" whole tissues (e.g., bone marrow) or ex vivo expanded cells from "uncommitted" (bone marrow, adipose tissue) or "committed" sources (periosteum, bone). Based on limited and heterogeneous clinical evidence, implantation of cells (mostly whole bone marrow), in combination with biomaterial scaffolds results in bone regeneration which is (a) superior compared to implantation of scaffolds alone in sinus and horizontal ridge augmentation, and (b) comparable to autogenous bone in alveolar cleft repair. CONCLUSIONS: Although current evidence points to the benefits of cell therapy in certain clinical indications, it is unclear whether the use of ex vivo expanded cells, either uncommitted or committed, is superior to whole tissue fractions in terms of bone regeneration. The relatively larger effect sizes in favour of cell therapy observed in pre-clinical studies are diminished in clinical trials. Future controlled studies should include cost-effectiveness analyses to guide clinical decision-making.
AIM: The objective of the present review was to answer the focused question: what is the effect of cell therapy in terms of orofacial bone regeneration compared to grafting with only biomaterial scaffolds and/or autogenous bone? METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for relevant controlled clinical and pre-clinical (large-animal) studies. Separate meta-analyses of quantitative data regarding histological or radiographic new bone formation were performed. RESULTS: Forty-seven eligible clinical and 57 pre-clinical studies were included. Clinical studies were categorized based on the use of "minimally manipulated" whole tissues (e.g., bone marrow) or ex vivo expanded cells from "uncommitted" (bone marrow, adipose tissue) or "committed" sources (periosteum, bone). Based on limited and heterogeneous clinical evidence, implantation of cells (mostly whole bone marrow), in combination with biomaterial scaffolds results in bone regeneration which is (a) superior compared to implantation of scaffolds alone in sinus and horizontal ridge augmentation, and (b) comparable to autogenous bone in alveolar cleft repair. CONCLUSIONS: Although current evidence points to the benefits of cell therapy in certain clinical indications, it is unclear whether the use of ex vivo expanded cells, either uncommitted or committed, is superior to whole tissue fractions in terms of bone regeneration. The relatively larger effect sizes in favour of cell therapy observed in pre-clinical studies are diminished in clinical trials. Future controlled studies should include cost-effectiveness analyses to guide clinical decision-making.
Authors: Katiúcia Batista Silva Paiva; Clara Soeiro Maas; Pâmella Monique Dos Santos; José Mauro Granjeiro; Ariadne Letra Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2019-12-13
Authors: Siddharth Shanbhag; Salwa Suliman; Samih Mohamed-Ahmed; Carina Kampleitner; Mohamed Nageeb Hassan; Patrick Heimel; Toni Dobsak; Stefan Tangl; Anne Isine Bolstad; Kamal Mustafa Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: Siddharth Shanbhag; Carina Kampleitner; Samih Mohamed-Ahmed; Mohammed Ahmad Yassin; Harsh Dongre; Daniela Elena Costea; Stefan Tangl; Andreas Stavropoulos; Anne Isine Bolstad; Salwa Suliman; Kamal Mustafa Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2021-11-30
Authors: Ludovica Parisi; Silvia Rihs; Giorgio C La Scala; Isabelle Schnyder; Christos Katsaros; Martin Degen Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 8.079
Authors: Vivian Wu; Marco N Helder; Nathalie Bravenboer; Christiaan M Ten Bruggenkate; Jianfeng Jin; Jenneke Klein-Nulend; Engelbert A J M Schulten Journal: Stem Cells Int Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 5.443
Authors: Siddharth Shanbhag; Samih Mohamed-Ahmed; Turid Helen Felli Lunde; Salwa Suliman; Anne Isine Bolstad; Tor Hervig; Kamal Mustafa Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 6.832