ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Site-specific periosteal cells with distinct osteogenic and angiogenic characteristics.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-omic analysis of jaw-bone periosteum identifies the role of macrophage-derived SPP1 in CtskBone research · 2026Article
- Unraveling Jawbone Susceptibility: Distinctive Features Underlying Medication-Related Osteonecrosis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the site-specific characteristics of rat mandible periosteal cells (MPCs) and tibia periosteal cells (TPCs) to assess the potential application of periosteal cells (PCs) in bone tissue engineering (BTE). MATERIALS AND
methodsMPCs and TPCs were isolated and characterized. The potential of proliferation, migration, osteogenesis and adipogenesis of MPCs and TPCs were evaluated by CCK-8, scratch assay, Transwell assay, alkaline phosphatase staining and activity, Alizarin Red S staining, RT‒qPCR, and Western blot (WB) assays, respectively. Then, these cells were cocultured with human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) to investigate their angiogenic capacity, which was assessed by scratch assay, Transwell assay, Matrigel tube formation assay, RT‒qPCR, and WB assays.
resultsMPCs exhibited higher osteogenic potential, higher alkaline phosphatase activity, and more mineralized nodule formation, while TPCs showed a greater capability for proliferation, migration, and adipogenesis. MPCs showed higher expression of angiogenic factors, and the conditioned medium of MPCs accelerated the migration of HUVECs, while MPC- conditioned medium induced the formation of more tubular structure in HUVECs in vitro. These data suggest that compared to TPCs, MPCs exert more consequential proangiogenic effects on HUVECs.
conclusionsPCs possess skeletal site-specific differences in biological characteristics. MPCs exhibit more eminent osteogenic and angiogenic potentials, which highlights the potential application of MPCs for BTE. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Autologous bone grafting as the main modality for maxillofacial bone defect repair has many limitations. Constituting an important cell type in bone repair and regeneration, MPCs show greater potential for application in BTE, which provides a promising treatment option for maxillofacial bone defect repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.