Promising Scaffold-Free Approaches in Translational Dentistry
Tatullo M., Marrelli B., Palmieri F., Amantea M., Nuzzolese M., Valletta R.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Environ Res Public Health (2020) — 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
- Int J Environ Res Public Health (2020)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 32357435
- PMCID
- PMC7246530
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijerph17093001
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
Regenerative medicine has recently improved the principal therapies in several medical fields. In the past ten years, the continuous search for novel approaches to treat the most common dental pathologies has developed a new branch called regenerative dentistry. The main research fields of translational dentistry involve biomimetic materials, orally derived stem cells, and tissue engineering to populate scaffolds with autologous stem cells and bioactive growth factors. The scientific literature has reported two main research trends in regenerative dentistry: scaffold-based and scaffold-free approaches. This article aims to critically review the main biological properties of scaffold-free regenerative procedures in dentistry. The most impactful pros and cons of the exosomes, the leading role of hypoxia-based mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and the strategic use of heat shock proteins in regenerative dentistry will be highlighted and discussed in terms of the use of such tools in dental regeneration and repair.
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.