High-plasticity mesenchymal stem cells isolated from adult-retained primary teeth and autogenous adult tooth pulp--A potential source for regenerative therapies?
Kushnerev E., Shawcross SG., Hillarby MC., Yates JM.
Laboratory Study, published in Arch Oral Biol (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Arch Oral Biol (2015)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 26651082
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.11.009
Abstract (original English)
The objective of this study was to compare the growth rate, morphology, immunohistology and plasticity of autogenous adult-retained SHEDs (arSHEDs) and adult dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) obtained from the same donor. Expression of the mesenchymal stem cell markers CD44, CD90, CD105, caspase-3 and GAPDH were assessed using RT-PCR. Caspase-3 and CD44 were also evaluated at the protein level by western blotting of cell lysates. Plasticity of DPSCs and arSHEDs were tested by culture in adipogenic, chondrogenic, osteogenic and Schwann cells induction media. DPSCs and arSHEDs were isolated by explant culturing and were similarly positive for growth rate and all tested markers. Furthermore, DPSCs and arSHEDs could be driven to adipocyte, chondrocyte, osteocyte and Schwann cells lineages thus indicating similar plasticity as precursor cells. This study demonstrates the similarities between DPSCs and arSHEDs in a unique situation, where both stem cells (SC) types were obtained from a single patient and thus represent an alternative source of SC's for tissue engineering and 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 preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.