The response of Mesenchymal Stem Cells to endodontic materials
Oliveira PY., Lacerda MFLS., Maranduba CMDC., Rettore JVP., Vieira LQ., Ribeiro Sobrinho AP.
Laboratory Study, published in Braz Dent J (2022) — 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
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Braz Dent J (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35508034
- PMCID
- PMC9645149
- DOI
- 10.1590/0103-6440202204786
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
An endodontic material must be minimally harmful to stem cells since they are essential, thanks to their capacity for cell proliferation, self-renewal, and differentiation. For this reason, in this in vitro study, the cell viability and the expression of genes involved in cell plasticity and differentiation were investigated in stem cells recovered from human dental pulp (hDPSCs) that were in contact with four endodontic materials (Endofill, MTA, Pulp Canal Sealer, and Sealer 26). The viability of HDPSCs was assessed by MTT and trypan blue exclusion assays. PCR evaluated cellular plasticity by determining the CD34, CD45, Nestin, CD105, Nanog, and OCT4 expressions. The effect on cell differentiation was determined by RT-PCR expression of the RUNX2, ALP, OC/BGLAP, and DMP1 genes. The data were analyzed using ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (p 0.05). When cultivated in the presence of MTA and Sealer 26, hDPSCs expressed Nestin, CD105, NANOG, and OCT-4 and did not express CD34 and CD45. MTA and Sealer 26 interfered with DMP1, OC/BGLAP and RUNX2 expressions (p 0.05). MTA and Sealer 26 showed biological compatibility in the presence of hDPSCs.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
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.