Orally Derived Stem Cell-Based Therapy in Periodontal Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Studies
Campagna A., Baima G., Romano F., Amoroso F., Mussano F., Oteri G.
Meta-analysis, published in Dent J (Basel) (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Dent J (Basel) (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38786543
- PMCID
- PMC11120617
- DOI
- 10.3390/dj12050145
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
The present systematic review was performed to assess the application of orally derived stem cells in periodontal regenerative therapy, and because of this, the following PICO question was proposed: "In patients with periodontitis, can the adjunctive use of orally derived stem cells provide additional clinical and radiographic benefits for periodontal regeneration?". Randomized clinical studies were electronically and manually searched up until December 2023. Quantitative analyses were performed with the aim of evaluating the mean differences (MDs) between the treatment and control groups in terms of clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, gingival recession (GR), and radiographic bone gain (RBG) using random effect models. A total of seven studies were selected for the systematic review. Meta-analyses excluding studies with a high risk of bias highlighted a non-statistically significant result for the use of stem cells when compared to the control groups in terms of CAL gain [MD = 1.05; 95% CI (-0.88, 2.97) p = 0.29] and PPD reduction [MD = 1.32; 95% CI (-0.25, 2.88) p = 0.10]. The same also applied to GR [MD = -0.08; 95% CI (-0.79, 0.63) p = 0.83] and RBG [MD = 0.50; 95% CI (-0.88, 1.88) p = 0.48]. Based on the high heterogeneity, there is not enough evidence to consider the adjunctive application of orally derived mesenchymal stem cells as
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
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.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.