Regeneration of periodontal bone defects with mesenchymal stem cells in animal models. 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)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in the regeneration of periodontal bone defects in animal models. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, and the study was recorded in PROSPERO under reference number CDR42021247462. The PICO question was: is periodontal regeneration (cementum, periodontal ligament and alveolar bone) with MSCs more effective than other techniques? Three groups were considered: Group 1: MSCs alone or mixed with regenerative materials. Group 2: only regenerative materials. Group 3: no regenerative material nor MSCs. The search was conducted using MeSH with a total of 18 articles for qualitative analysis and 5 for quantitative analysis. For the meta-analysis, a modification of the effect size algorithm was developed, which considered a comparison of means between treatments using the Student's t sample distribution. When comparing the effect size between Group 1 and Group 2, the effect size for the new cementum was 2.83 mm with an estimated confidence interval of 95% (CI 95%) between 0.48 and 5.17 mm. When considering the fit to a random-effects model, the combined variance (τ 2 ) was 6.1573 mm, with a standard deviation (SD) of 5.6008 mm and a percentage of total heterogeneity I 2 of 92.33% (p 2 = 1.3108 mm (SD = 1.2021 mm) and I 2 = 80.46%, p = 0.0004). With regard t

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.