Background : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [1]
While bone substitute materials are routinely used, especially vertical bone, augmentation of the jaws is still a problematic step. Dental stem cells in combination with bone substitute materials may accelerate the augmentation of alveolar bone and perhaps, stem cell-based therapies can become an alternative to autologous, allogenic, or synthetic bone transplants and substitutes [1,2]. However, scaffolds are required for cell delivery, and here, commercially available bone substitute materials could be an excellent source for dental tissue engineering.
For more than 10 years, human dental stem cell research has focused on the identification and characterization of human stem/progenitor cell populations, which can be isolated, for example, from retained third molars of juvenile patients [3]. One example for such type of dental stem cells are undifferentiated cells from the dental follicle (DFCs) [4,5]. These highly proliferative cells can be differentiated in vitro into periodontal ligament (PDL) cells, cementoblasts and osteoblasts, and into PDL-like cells in vivo [4]. Preliminary results from animal studies suggested that DFCs have also a good osteogenic differentiation potential and could be an excellent source for the regeneration of craniofacial bone [6]. Another excellent source for cellular therapies of mineralized tissues is progenitor cells from the dental apical papilla of retained third molar tooth (dNC-PCs) [7]. These dental cells differentiate into osteoblast-like cells after the induction with osteogenic differentiation medium under in vitro conditions and under in vivo conditions in immunocompromised mice [8].
For the osteogenic differentiation under in vivo conditions, stem cells are combined actually with hydroxyl-apatite (HAP) or β tricalcium phosphate (TCP) scaffolds [4,9]. Although this is routinely applied, we know only little about the adherence and the viability of dental progenitor cells on these implant materials. Conversely, an optimal bone substitute material has not been identified so far for different dental stem cell types. In a recent study, we investigated, therefore, cell survival/proliferation and cell differentiation of DFCs in combination with a commercially available TCP [10]. Here, DFCs attached on TCP and cell numbers increased after 6 days of cultivation. We showed that DFCs had a typical flattened-shaped morphology with close contacts to the bone substitute material [10]. Interestingly, the gene expression of osteogenic markers such as osteopontin or RUNX2 was increased, and the alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity was induced on TCP in differentiated DFCs [10]. All these data support the assumption that TCP could be the optimal scaffold for a successful differentiation protocol of DFC.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions
- Background : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [1]
- Background : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [2]
- Methods : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [1]
- Methods : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [2]
- Methods : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [3]
- Methods : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [4]
- Results : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [1]
- Results : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [2]
- Discussion : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [1]
- Discussion : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [2]
- Conclusions : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions
- References : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [1]
- References : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [2]
- References : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [3]
- Acknowledgement : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions
- Author information : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [1]
- Author information : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions [2]
- Additional information : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions
- Additional file : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions
- Rights and permissions : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions
- About this article : Evaluation of implant-materials as cell carriers for dental stem cells under in vitro conditions
- Figure 1. Cell attachment on tested materials. (A) Relative cell adherence of DFCs and dNC-PCs; (B) dental cells did little adhere on PA; representative pictures of DFCs. : Evaluation of implant
- Figure 2. Cell proliferation of dNC-PCs and DFCs on tested materials. (A) and (B) Relative cell numbers; (C) spheroid cell clusters on silicone (representative pictures for DFCs); Silicone (24 and 48 h). : Evaluation of implant
- Figure 3. Evaluation of programmed cell death (apoptosis) in dental stem cells. (A) Flow cytometry analyses (for details materials and methods) show percentage of vital cells (black number), apoptotic cells (blue number), and dead cells (red number). (B) Western blot analyses show the expression of the pro-apoptotic marker BAX and the anti-apoptotic marker BCL2. : Evaluation of implant
- Figure 4. Osteogenic differentiation of dental stem cells. Normalized ALP activity of dNC-PCs and DFCs on AP and SB (A) and on silicone (B). Cells were differentiated on standard cell culture dishes for control. : Evaluation of implant
- Figure 5. Evaluation of osteogenic differentiation. (A) Clustergram of PCR-array results; (B-C) histology of differentiated dental cells on AP (B) and SB (C). Representative results are shown for dNC-PCs. : Evaluation of implant
- Figure 6. Cultivation and osteogenic differentiation of DFCs on PA after modification with collagen I. (Left) Relative cell number and (Right) normalized ALP activity. : Evaluation of implant