Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cell Therapy Improves Salivary Flow Rate in Radiation-Induced Salivary Gland Hypofunction in Preclinical in vivo Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• 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

Abstract (original English)

Background Mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) have been suggested for salivary gland (SG) restoration following radio-induced salivary gland damage. This study aimed to determine the safety and effectiveness of MSC therapy on radio-induced SG damage and hypofunction in preclinical in vivo studies. Methods PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for preclinical in vivo interventional studies evaluating efficacy and safety of MSC treatment following radio-induced salivary gland damage published before 10th of January 2022. The primary endpoint was salivary flow rate (SFR) evaluated in a meta-analysis. The study protocol was published and registered on PROSPERO ( www.crd.ac.uk/prospero ), registration number CRD42021227336. Results A total of 16 preclinical in vivo studies were included for qualitative analysis (858 experimental animals) and 13 in the meta-analysis (404 experimental animals). MSCs originated from bone marrow (four studies), adipose tissue (10 studies) and salivary gland tissue (two studies) and were administered intravenously (three studies), intra-glandularly (11 studies) or subcutaneously (one study). No serious adverse events were reported. The overall effect on SFR was significantly increased with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 6.99 (95% CI: 2.55-11.42). Studies reported improvements in acinar tissue, vascular areas and paracrine factors. Co

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

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