4.8 Article

A comparison between adipose tissue and dental pulp as sources of MSCs for tooth regeneration

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 32, Issue 29, Pages 6995-7005

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.05.086

Keywords

Adipose-derived stem cells (ADSC); Dental pulp stem cells (DPSC); Mesenchymal stem cell; Transplantation; Tooth regeneration

Funding

  1. Taiwan Council of Agriculture [97AS-1.2.1-AD-U1]
  2. TCVGH [T967803, T96011]
  3. Taipei City Hospital
  4. Samuel Kuo and Grace Liu of Samson Group

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, several in vivo and in vitro comparisons were performed to test the possibility of using adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs), a more convenient cell source than dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), in tooth regeneration. Using an efficient, non-engineering implantation method, we first demonstrated that both implants of ADSCs and DPSCs were able to grow self-assembled new teeth in adult rabbit extraction sockets with high success rate. The stem cells were necessary because the implants grew no tooth without them. A stepwise comparison showed that the regenerated teeth from these two types of adult stem cells were living with nerves and vascular system and remarkably similar to a normal tooth in many details. Further strictly controlled, side-by-side comparisons between the two types of stem cells also showed that the expression patterns of gene markers and the broad differentiation potentials induced by specific methods in vitro were very similar. Although a few differences were found, they did not affect the tested tooth regeneration in vivo or differentiation in vitro. Furthermore, rabbit ADSCs had a higher growth rate and a better senescence resistance in culture. All these findings suggest that ADSCs, one of the richest adult stem cells in mammals, are very similar and useful as DPSCs for regenerative dentistry. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available