Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMed

Stem Cells for Bone Regeneration: Current State and Future Directions.

Luby AO., Ranganathan K., Lynn JV., Nelson NS., Donneys A., Buchman SR.

Narrative Review on Cartilage Damage, published in J Craniofac Surg (2019) — 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
Narrative Review
Journal
J Craniofac Surg (2019)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
30817525
DOI
10.1097/SCS.0000000000005250
Citations
37

Abstract (original English)

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are capable of differentiating into osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and adipocytes, each of which is important for musculoskeletal tissue regeneration and repair. Reconstruction and healing of bony defects remains a major clinical challenge. Even as surgical practices advance, some severe cases of bone loss do not yield optimal recovery results. New techniques involving implantation of stem cells and tissue-engineered scaffolds are being developed to help improve bone and cartilage repair. The invasiveness and low yield of harvesting MSCs from the bone marrow (BMSCs) has led to the investigation of alternatives, including adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ASCs). A review of the literature yielded several studies concerning the use of BMSCs and ASCs for the treatment of bone defects in both in vitro and in vivo models. Although both ASCs and BMSCs have demonstrated bone regenerative capabilities, BMSCs have outperformed ASCs in vitro. Despite these in vitro study findings, in vivo study results remain variable. Analysis of the literature seems to conclude there is no significant difference between bone regeneration using ASCs or BMSCs in vivo. Improved study design and standardization may enhance the application of these studies to patient care in the clinical setting.

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 evidence
AdipocytesAdipose TissueAnimalsBone Marrow TransplantationBone RegenerationCell DifferentiationChondrocytesForecastingHumansMesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation

Browse all related research

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

Related research