A comparison of tissue-engineered bone from adipose-derived stem cell with autogenous bone repair in maxillary alveolar cleft model in dogs.
Pourebrahim N., Hashemibeni B., Shahnaseri S., Torabinia N., Mousavi B., Adibi S.
Clinical Trial, published in Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2012) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Clinical Trial
- Journal
- Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2012)
- Country
- Denmark
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 23219713
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.10.012
- Citations
- 46
Abstract (original English)
This study was designed to compare bone regeneration of tissue-engineered bone from adipose-derived stem cell and autogenous bone graft in a canine maxillary alveolar cleft model. In this prospective clinical trial, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were isolated from subcutaneous canine adipose tissue. Undifferentiated cells were incubated with a 3mm×3mm×3mm hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold, in specific osteogenic medium for 21 days. Four mongrel dogs were prepared by removal of two of the three incisors bilaterally and a 15mm defect in bone was created from crest to nasal floor. After healing, repair was followed by a tissue engineered bone graft from adipose-derived stem cells on one side and corticocancellous tibial auto graft on the other side. Bone regeneration was evaluated by histomorphometry on days 15 and 60 after implantation. The data were analysed with descriptive and t test methods (α=0.05). Bone formation on the autograft sides was higher than on the stem cell sides at 15 and 60 days, 45% and 96% versus 5% and 70%, respectively. Differences between the two groups at 15 and 60 days were significant (p=0.004 and 0.001, respectively). Although autograft is still the gold standard for bone regeneration, tissue engineered bone may provide an acceptable alternative.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.