Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Nov;52(11):1573-1585.
doi: 10.1111/iej.13177. Epub 2019 Jul 31.

Stem/progenitor cell-mediated pulpal tissue regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

K M Fawzy El-Sayed  1   2   3 , G M Ahmed  2   4 , E A Abouauf  2   5 , F Schwendicke  6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Stem/progenitor cell-mediated pulpal tissue regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

K M Fawzy El-Sayed et al. Int Endod J. 2019 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Stem/progenitor cell-mediated pulpal regeneration could represent a promising therapeutic alternative in the field of clinical endodontics.

Aim: The present study aimed to systematically assess and meta-analyse dental pulpal tissue regeneration, pulpal vitality and apical healing after the transplantation of stem/progenitor cells versus no transplantation.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and EMBASE were searched up to January 2019 for animal experiments and human trials evaluating the pulpal transplantation of stem/progenitor cells. Cross-referencing and hand search were additionally performed.

Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions: Based on randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs), conducted in animals or humans, the effect of the transplantation of stem/progenitor cells compared to no transplantation on pulpal tissue regeneration, pulpal vitality and apical healing was examined.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The primary outcome was histologically determined pulpal tissue regeneration, whilst pulpal vitality and apical healing were secondary outcomes. The SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) guidelines and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0) were used for risk-of-bias assessment. Pooled standardized differences in means (SDM) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses.

Results: From 2834 identified articles, eight animal experiments (82 animals with 336 experimental pulpal defects) and one human trial (40 humans with 40 pulpal defects) were included. Risk of bias of most animal studies was high, whilst the human trial revealed 'some concerns'. Stem/progenitor cell-transplanted pulps demonstrated significantly increased pulpal tissue regeneration compared with controls (SDM [95%CI]: 6.29 [3.78-8.80]).

Limitations: Data on pulpal vitality and apical healing were sparse and inconsistent. Heterogeneity across studies was substantial, publication bias was present, and mainly indirect, surrogate outcome measures were applied. The overall strength of evidence was very low.

Conclusions and implications of key findings: The transplanation of stem/progenitor cells shows promise for pulp regeneration, whilst clinical routine application is still not in reach. Further investigations, employing a comprehensive set of outcomes including those demonstrating functional pulp regeneration relevant for patient-centred care, are required.

Keywords: meta-analysis; pulp; regeneration; stem cells; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Albuquerque MT, Valera MC, Nakashima M, Nor JE, Bottino MC (2014) Tissue-engineering-based strategies for regenerative endodontics. Journal of Dental Research 93, 1222-31.
    1. Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Moberg J et al. (2016) GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ 353, i2016.
    1. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al. (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328, 1490.
    1. Collaboration C (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane Collaboration.
    1. Conde MC, Chisini LA, Demarco FF, Nor JE, Casagrande L, Tarquinio SB (2016) Stem cell-based pulp tissue engineering: variables enrolled in translation from the bench to the bedside, a systematic review of literature. International Endodontic Journal 49, 543-50.

LinkOut - more resources