Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Dental and Nondental Stem Cell Based Regeneration of the Craniofacial Region: A Tissue Based Approach

Hughes D., Song B.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in Stem Cells Int (2016) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Narrative Review
Journal
Stem Cells Int (2016)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
27143979
PMCID
PMC4842076
DOI
10.1155/2016/8307195
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

Craniofacial reconstruction may be a necessary treatment for those who have been affected by trauma, disease, or pathological developmental conditions. The use of stem cell therapy and tissue engineering shows massive potential as a future treatment modality. Currently in the literature, there is a wide variety of published experimental studies utilising the different stem cell types available and the plethora of available scaffold materials. This review investigates different stem cell sources and their unique characteristics to suggest an ideal cell source for regeneration of individual craniofacial tissues. At present, understanding and clinical applications of stem cell therapy remain in their infancy with numerous challenges to overcome. In spite of this, the field displays immense capacity and will no doubt be utilised in future clinical treatments of craniofacial regeneration.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research