Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Potential of periosteal cells in bone and cartilage regeneration: a systematic review

Cao R., Chen B., Li Q., Qiu P., Liang X., Cao Y.

Systematic Review on Cartilage Damage, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Systematic Review
Journal
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38026851
PMCID
PMC10666167
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2023.1292483
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Introduction: The unavailability of adequate human primary cells presents multiple challenges in terms of bone and cartilage regeneration and disease modeling experiments in vitro . Periosteal cells (PCs), which represent promising skeletal stem cell sources, could be a promising strategy in tissue engineering. The present study aimed to summarize the characteristics of PCs to investigate the efficacy of these cells in bone and cartilage regeneration in different models, paying special attention to the comparison of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus for articles published in English until April 2023. Only original researches in which PCs were employed for bone or cartilage regeneration experiments were included. Results: A total of 9140 references were retrieved. After screening the results, 36 publications were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the present literature review. Overall, PCs demonstrated beneficial bone and cartilage regenerative efficacy compared to the bare scaffold since almost all included studies reported positive results. The 9 studies assessing the differences in bone formation capacity between PCs and BMSCs indicated that PCs exhibited stronger in vivo osteogenic differentiation capabilities compared to BMSCs, while the other study demon

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 evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research