Impact of Different Cell Types on the Osteogenic Differentiation Process of Mesenchymal Stem Cells
Wang Z., Ren L., Li Z., Qiu Q., Wang H., Huang X.
Narrative Review, published in Stem Cells Int (2025) — 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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Stem Cells Int (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39980864
- PMCID
- PMC11842143
- DOI
- 10.1155/sci/5551222
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
The skeleton is an important organ in the human body. Bone defects caused by trauma, inflammation, tumors, and other reasons can impact the quality of life of patients. Although the skeleton has a certain ability to repair itself, the current most effective method is still autologous bone transplantation due to factors such as blood supply and defect size. Modern medicine is attempting to overcome these limitations through cell therapy, with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) playing a crucial role. MSCs can be extracted from different tissues, and their differentiation potential varies depending on the source. Various cells and cell secretions can influence this process. This article, based on previous research, reviews the effects of macrophages, endothelial cells (ECs), nerve cells, periodontal cells, and even some bacteria on MSC osteogenic differentiation, aiming to provide a reference for multicell coculture strategies related to osteogenesis.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.