ArticleBMC oral health2026
Dental pulp stem cells and hydroxyapatite: a promising combination for maxillary bone regeneration.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- HAp/PLGA/Chitosan Scaffolds Fabricated by Freeze-Drying and 3D Printing for Bone Regeneration: In Vitro Evaluation and Finite Element Analysis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Telomerase-mediated immortalization preserves the anti-inflammatory activity of dental pulp stem cell extracellular vesicles.Frontiers in immunology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED) and dental pulp stem cells (DPSC) exhibit significant potential for bone regeneration therapies. However, the optimal scaffold material for maximising their osteogenic potential remains unclear.
aimThis study investigated the comparative efficacy of hydroxyapatite (HA) and polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds in supporting SHED and DPSC proliferation and osteogenic differentiation for maxillary bone regeneration.
methodsCells were extracted from the dental pulp of deciduous and permanent teeth using enzymatic digestion and cultured until passage three. Characterisation of SHED and DPSC was conducted using morphological observation, stemness markers, proliferation analysis, and an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) assay. SHED and DPSC were then cultured on HA and PCL scaffolds, and in vitro cell proliferation and osteogenic potential (FESEM morphological analysis, ALP-specific activity, and osteoblast markers) were determined prior to in vivo transplantation. In vivo study involved the transplantation of cells with scaffolds into an artificial bone defect of 4 mm length and 1.5 mm depth in the rat’s left maxilla. Three-dimensional analysis via micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and histological evaluations were performed six weeks post-transplantation.
resultsCharacterised SHED and DPSC populations displayed mesenchymal stem cell markers (CD73+, CD105+, CD146+) and lacked hematopoietic markers (CD11B−, CD34−, CD45−). Both cell types exhibited proliferation capacity and osteogenic potential. Although early osteogenic differentiation was observed on PCL scaffolds, HA scaffolds promoted robust osteoblast differentiation, with enhanced mineralisation, ALP-specific activity, and increased expression of osteoblast markers (RUNX2+, COL1A1+, ALPL+). Notably, SHED showed enhanced proliferation on the HA scaffold, accompanied by increased osteoblastic phenotypes. In vivo transplantation in rat maxillary defects confirmed these findings. Micro-CT analysis and histological evaluations revealed significantly greater (p < 0.05) new bone formation in the HA scaffold seeded with either SHED or DPSC as compared to PCL scaffolds.
conclusionThis study demonstrated the superior compatibility of SHED and DPSC with HA scaffold in promoting osteogenesis and maxillary bone regeneration. These findings suggest that the combination of dental pulp stem cells and HA shows promising potential for maxillary bone regeneration in preclinical models, with possible translational relevance for future clinical applications. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.