ArticleOdontology2026
Comparison of the osteoinductive potential of preconditioned dental pulp stem cell secretome versus their exosomes.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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.
- Article
- Exosome-loaded human amniotic membrane hydrogel modulates regenerative responses of human dental pulp stem cells.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effects of osteogenically preconditioned dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) secretome versus their exosomes on proliferation, migration, osteogenic differentiation, and mineralization of bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs). BMSCs and DPSCs were isolated and characterized. DPSCs were osteogenically preconditioned for 10 days before isolation of their derivatives. The study involved four groups: negative control (BMSCs in complete media), positive control (BMSCs in complete media with osteogenic supplement), secretome group (BMSCs co-cultured with DPSCs-secretome), and exosome group (BMSCs co-cultured with DPSCs-exosomes). BMSCs' viability through MTT assay and cell migration were evaluated. Mineralization was assessed through Alizarin red S and Von Kossa staining. RT-qPCR was performed for osteogenic gene expression, followed by statistical analysis. The exosome group showed the highest cell proliferation on day 5, but it did not reach statistical significance. Cell migration assay showed more rapid wound closure in the control group. However, after 24 h, the secretome group outperformed the exosome group, while the opposite results were observed after 48 h. The exosome group revealed the highest mineralization and osteogenic marker expressions, followed by the secretome, and finally the control groups, with significant differences between groups. Therefore, osteogenic preconditioning can be considered as an efficient tool for enhancing the osteoinductive influence of DPSCs-derivatives, promoting osteoblastic differentiation and mineralization, and under the tested conditions, exosomes demonstrated greater osteoinductive activity compared to secretome. However, osteogenically committed cells seem to lose their paracrine influence on cell viability and migration.
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.