Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

Stem cell-based scaffolds using dental pulp and adipose-derived stem cells in periodontal regeneration: Evidence from preclinical or clinical studies.

Muthusamy M., George B., Alexander D., Sen S., Janya S., Rajanna BD.

Laboratory Study on Ligament Injury, published in Bioinformation (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Bioinformation (2026)
Country
Singapore
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
42282350
PMCID
PMC13252327
DOI
10.6026/973206300222015

Abstract (original English)

Current periodontal therapies fail to predictably restore the complete architecture of alveolar bone, periodontal ligament and cementum lost due to periodontal disease. Stem cell-based scaffolds have emerged as a biological strategy to enhance coordinated periodontal regeneration through combined cellular and biomaterial approaches. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate preclinical and clinical evidence on dental pulp stem cell and adipose-derived stem cell-based scaffolds in periodontal regeneration. Animal studies consistently demonstrate enhanced new bone formation, cementum-like tissue deposition, organized periodontal ligament-like fibers and improved vascularization compared to scaffold-only controls. Thus, we report reductions in probing depth, gains in clinical attachment and favorable safety profiles, although standardized protocols and long-term data remain limited.

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 evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research