Osteogenic potential of stem cells-seeded bioactive nanocomposite scaffolds: A comparative study between human mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone, umbilical cord Wharton's jelly, and adipose tissue.
Kargozar S., Mozafari M., Hashemian SJ., Brouki Milan P., Hamzehlou S., Soleimani M.
Clinical Trial, published in J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater (2016) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- 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
- Clinical Trial
- Journal
- J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater (2016)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 27862947
- DOI
- 10.1002/jbm.b.33814
Abstract (original English)
Bone regeneration is considered as an unmet clinical need, the aim of this study is to investigate the osteogenic potential of three different mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from human bone marrow (BM-MSCs), umbilical cord Wharton's jelly (UC-MSCs), and adipose (AD-MSCs) seeded on a recently developed nanocomposite scaffold (bioactive glass/gelatin) implanted in rat animal models with critical size calvarial defects. In this study, after isolation, culture, and characterization, the MSCs were expanded and seeded on the scaffolds for in vitro and in vivo studies. The adhesion, proliferation, and viability of the cells on the scaffolds evaluated in vitro, showed that the scaffolds were biocompatible for further examinations. In order to evaluate the scaffolds in vivo, rat animal models with critical size calvarial defects were randomly categorized in four groups and treated with the scaffolds. The animals were sacrificed at the time points of 4 and 12 weeks of post-implantation, bone healing process were investigated. The histological and immunohistological observations showed (p < 0.01) higher osteogenesis capacity in the group treated with BM-MSCs/scaffolds compared to the other groups. However, the formation of new angiogenesis was evidently higher in the defects filled with UC-MSCs/scaffolds. This preliminary study provides promising data for further clinical trials. ©
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.