<i>In vitro</i> effects of different biomaterials on canine dental pulp stem cells
Marx R., Nemec A., Kocjan A., Voga M.
Laboratory Study, published in Front Vet Sci (2026) — 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
- Front Vet Sci (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41728121
- PMCID
- PMC12917891
- DOI
- 10.3389/fvets.2026.1758525
Abstract (original English)
Objective Regenerative endodontic treatments are being developed in veterinary dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility and odontogenic potential of three biomaterials, ProRoot ® MTA (MTA), RS + ™ (RS+), and CellFoam™ (CF), on canine dental pulp stem cells (cDPSCs) under conditions simulating early and clinically relevant exposures. Methods cDPSCs were isolated from three healthy dog teeth extracted for clinical reasons and characterized by flow cytometry (CD44 + /CD90 + /CD29 + /CD34 - ) and multilineage differentiation. Cells were cultured with material suspensions (acute cytotoxic effect) or conditioned medium (physiologically relevant effect). Metabolic activity and cell viability were assessed by MTT and live/dead assays. Osteogenic/odontogenic differentiation was evaluated by Alizarin Red S staining and RT-qPCR for RUNX2, ALPL, and MMP13 expression. Results In suspension cultures, compared with MTA and RS+, CF maintained significantly higher metabolic activity and cell viability across several dilutions, indicating lower acute cytotoxicity. Under conditioned exposure, no significant differences among materials were observed, reflecting the dilution and buffering effects that mitigate early reactivity. All the materials supported Alizarin Red S-positive mineral deposition, with a significant difference at D3, when ARS staining of cDPSCs was gre
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.