Next Article in Journal
Influence of Coarse Aggregate Type on the Mechanical Strengths and Durability of Cement Concrete
Next Article in Special Issue
Improved Adsorption of the Antimicrobial Agent Poly (Hexamethylene) Biguanide on Ti-Al-V Alloys by NaOH Treatment and Impact of Mass Coverage and Contamination on Cytocompatibility
Previous Article in Journal
Microstructure, Microhardness, Fracture Toughness, and Abrasive Wear of In-Situ Synthesized TiC/Ti-Al Composite Coatings by Cold Spraying Combined with Heat Treatment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Zn-Doped CaP-Based Coatings on Ti–6Al–4V and Ti–6Al–7Nb Alloys Prepared by Magnetron Sputtering: Controllable Biodegradation, Bacteriostatic, and Osteogenic Activities
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Systematic Review

Role of Stem Cells in Augmenting Dental Implant Osseointegration: A Systematic Review

Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
Department of Periodontics and Community Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
Department of Restorative Dental Science, Division of Operative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Department of Periodontology, Tagore Dental College and Hospital, Chennai 600127, India
Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Chennai 600130, India
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Science, Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2021, 11(9), 1035;
Submission received: 15 July 2021 / Revised: 20 August 2021 / Accepted: 24 August 2021 / Published: 27 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surface Modification of Medical Implants)


Dental implants are a widely used treatment modality for oral rehabilitation. Implant failures can be a result of many factors, with poor osseointegration being the main culprit. The present systematic review aimed to assess the effect of stem cells on the osseointegration of dental implants. An electronic search of the MEDLINE, LILACS, and EMBASE databases was conducted. We examined quantitative preclinical studies that reported on the effect of mesenchymal stem cells on bone healing after implant insertion. Eighteen studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. Various surface modification strategies, sites of placement, and cell origins were analyzed. The majority of the selected studies showed a high risk of bias, indicating that caution must be exercised in their interpretation. All the included studies reported that the stem cells used with graft material and scaffolds promoted osseointegration with higher levels of new bone formation. The mesenchymal cells attached to the implant surface facilitated the expression of bio-functionalized biomaterial surfaces, to boost bone formation and osseointegration at the bone–implant interfaces. There was a promotion of osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal cells and osseointegration of biomaterial implants, both in vitro and in vivo. These results highlight the significance of biomodified implant surfaces that can enhance osseointegration. These innovations can improve the stability and success rate of the implants used for oral rehabilitation.

1. Introduction

Dental implants are an effective treatment strategy for the replacement of missing teeth, enhancing function and aesthetics [1]. Although implant therapy is associated with a success rate, several factors can influence the prognosis of the treatment, such as the experience of the operator [2], the site of the implant placement [3], and the bone quantity and quality [4]. It is even possible to place implants in cases where there is reduced bone volume or inadequate bone support. However, a surgical bone grafting procedure to augment the bone would be necessary before placement. This would improve the prognosis, and enhance the stability and success [5].
Bone regeneration after grafting is a complex process that is an interplay of a variety of specialized cells and polypeptide growth factors to recreate the lost bone [6]. Osteoimmunology is a new area of study that examines the vital role that immune cells play in bone recovery [7]. Traditional bone-substitute materials were believed to guide osteoblastic lineage cells for osteogenesis, aiding in bone regeneration. However, there are discrepancies between the in vitro and in vivo results. The materials that aided in in vitro bone formation were not as effective in vivo. This may be due to the immune responses evoked by the material. While it may be unfeasible to look for biomaterials that trigger no immune response, it may be possible to modify existing materials to elicit a beneficial immune reaction. It is important to examine a bone biomaterial’s immunogenicity, along with its osteogenic and osseointegrative capabilities [8,9,10].
A lack of adequate bone support is a contraindication for implant placement [11]. Demetriades et al. [12] reported that alveolar bone with a diameter of 5 mm has to be augmented before implant placement. There are many bone manipulation methods used to attain predictable effectiveness for dental implants in the long term, with autologous bone grafts being the gold standard. Autologous bone shows superior osteoconductive and immunogenic properties, and osteogenic and osteoinductive properties [13,14].
Various metallic, ceramic, and hybrid scaffolds have been used to enhance the osseointegration of load-bearing implants. However, implant malfunction studies reveal a high rate of interfacial failure, due to impaired implant tissue integration and osteolysis, combined with modulus mismatch. Recently, stem cells are being considered for the augmentation of implant sites. Stem cells are multipotent cells with the properties of self-renewal [15] and the capacity to differentiate into many different cell types, such as neurons [16], hepatocytes [17], chondrocytes [18], and osteoblasts [19]. Stem cells are found in the human body in various ecological niches, such as the blood, bone marrow, umbilical cord, dental pulp, apical papilla, and periodontal ligament [20]. Stem cells can be classified, based on surface markers, into hematopoietic or mesenchymal types [21]. A wealth of data supports the use of stem cells in regenerative medicine. Research has focused on using live cells, scaffolds, and growth factors for the regeneration of lost tissue parts [22]. Stem cells have potential applications in dental implantology. Implant dentistry already uses a plethora of scaffolds and growth factors that were developed via recombinant techniques, to improve stability and osseointegrations [23]. A few animal model studies have examined the use of stem cells for implant osseointegration [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. The most recent review of available studies was published half a decade ago, by Misawa et al. They did not consider studies examining the role of stem cells in sinus augmentation for implant placement [42]. This systematic review aimed to qualitatively assess the animal studies available in the literature, on dental implants coated with stem cells to enhance osseointegration.

2. Materials and Methods

Search strategy: The international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) was searched for systematic reviews related to the role of stem cells in the osseointegration of dental implants. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA) criteria were adopted [41].
Focus question: “Does the application of stem cells augment osseointegration of dental implants?” [41].
The clinical question in “PICO” format in our study was as follows:
Animal model eligibility criteria (P): all healthy in vivo animal models that can undergo extraction of teeth and implant treatment closely mimicking some aspects of tooth replacement by implants in humans.
Intervention (I): application of stem cells on implant surface before, or simultaneous or post-implant placement.
Comparison (C): comparison with negative control or graft material without stem cells (the control groups differed based on the intervention type in each study).
Outcome (O): osseointegration and new bone formation.

2.1. Search Strategy

The following steps were performed for conducting the review:
(I) A broad electronic search was conducted of the MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using the keyword combination “Stem Cell” AND “Dental Implant Osseointegration”. The electronic search was complemented by a manual search of the references in the selected full articles.
(II) Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two calibrated reviewers to remove irrelevant articles and duplicates.
(III) Selection of the full-text articles was conducted manually by the same two reviewers with the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the following section.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

In vivo animal model studies using stem cells (derived from humans, autologous stem cells, stem cells derived from another animal of the same species) to augment dental implant osseointegration, treatment of peri implant–bone defects, and sinus augmentation for implant placement published in the English language were eligible for this review.

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

In vitro studies, studies that used commercially available stem cells, reviews, short articles (commentary, letters, correspondence), case reports, and studies conducted without control groups were excluded from the review. Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flow chart.

2.4. Data Extraction

All studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria underwent a validity evaluation. Reasons rejected were recorded for each study. Kappa coefficient describes an agreement between reviewers. Both reviewers have extracted the data independently with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. Authors were also contacted to provide missing information and clarify data. The following data were extracted and recorded: number of patients, number of defects per group, defect size and type, stem cell characterization, stem cell origin, defect location, length of follow-up, and treatment.

2.5. Quality Assessment and Data Synthesis

Both reviewers were blinded to the authors, journal titles, and institutions. The reviewers independently performed the quality assessment of included studies. Any conflicts were solved by a discussion with a third reviewer.

2.6. Risk of Bias Assessment

The studies were assessed based on 10 parameters sequence generation, baseline characteristics, allocation concealment, random housing, blinding of investigators/caregivers, random outcome assessment, blinding of assessor, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias based on SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. The risk of bias was categorized as low when 70% of the parameters were fulfilled, moderate when 50 to 69% of the parameters were fulfilled and high when <49% of parameters were fulfilled [42].

3. Results

3.1. Selection of Articles

A total of 1113 articles, including 297 from PubMed, 301 from Scopus, and 513 from Web of Science, were retrieved using the keywords. Title and abstract screening of the identified articles revealed that 856 articles were either duplicate or irrelevant to the topic of interest, and hence were excluded. Out of the 257 full-text articles that were screened for eligibility, only 18 met the inclusion criteria, and hence were included in the present review. The kappa score was 0.99. Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the search strategy used in the present review. Table 1 reports the characteristics of the final 18 retained articles.

3.2. Characteristics of the Included Studies

Geographical distribution: of the 18 included studies, 7 were from China, 3 each from Japan and Korea, 2 each from Italy and Brazil, and one from Egypt.
The source of the stem cells: 14 studies used bone marrow-derived stem cells. A few studies used other sources, such as amniotic fluid, umbilical cord, hematopoietic, dental pulp, SHED, adipose-derived, and periodontal ligament, and compared the differences between the different stem cell types [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].
The animals used: 12 studies used various species of dogs [25,26,28,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,40,41], 2 studies each used rabbits [24,27], and 2 studies used miniature pigs [33,39].
The site of the study: Of the 18 studies, 14 studies assessed the effect of stem cells on the peri-implant–bone defect, and 4 studies assessed the impact on maxillary sinus floor elevation [24,35,36,39].
The implant type: All the studies used titanium implants of varying sizes and brands. Twelve studies were in the mandibular premolar to the molar region [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,38,40], one study was in the mandibular canine region [37], 4 studies were in the maxillary sinus region [24,35,36,39], and in one study, the site was not mentioned [41].
The follow-up period: The period of follow-up ranged between 2 weeks and 16 weeks, approximately [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].
Outcome assessment: All 18 studies assessed osseointegration through histology and histomorphometry [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Three studies used sequential fluorescence labelling [24,36,41], and two each used micro CT [32,36] and radiography [33,37].

3.3. Risk of Bias

The studies were assessed based on 10 domains sequence generations, baseline characteristics, allocation concealment, random housing, blinding of investigators/caregivers, random outcome assessment, blinding of assessor, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias, based on SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies (Table 2).

3.4. Qualitative Analysis of the Effect of Stem Cells on Osseointegration

All the included studies reported that the stem cells used with graft material and scaffolds promoted osseointegration with higher levels of new bone formation at the contacts. However, there was no homogeneity in the scaffolds used (Table 3).
Osseointegration determined by bone–implant contact: all the studies reported higher bone–implant contact in the study group with stem cells and the graft material. However, the results were not statistically significant in five of the included studies [27,31,32,33,35].

4. Discussion

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the effect of stem cell-coated dental implants on osseointegration in animal models. Animal model studies were chosen as few human studies are available [43,44].
Most of the animal studies on stem cell-coated dental implants were from Asia (n = 13), while the other five studies were from Africa, South America, and Europe, respectively [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. This suggests that further global research, especially in North America and Oceania could help advance and unlock the benefits of stem cells in implantology.
All the included studies reported that the stem cells used with graft material and scaffolds promoted osseointegration with higher levels of new bone formation. Osteoblasts are necessary for bone formation; while mesenchymal stem cells may promote osseointegration [45], MSCs influence osteogenesis through their molecular signals that favor the osteoblastic differentiation of MSCs [31,37,46,47]. The application of stem cells along with scaffolds or graft material could promote osseointegration and bone formation through osteoblastic differentiation. The implant surface characteristics play a major role in osseointegration [48]. The studies that modified the surface of the implants, through the application of mesenchymal stem cells, reported enhanced osseointegration. This may be due to the various growth factors that enhance osteoblastic differentiation of the stem cells, and ensure new bone formation.
Many of the animal models used dogs in the studies [25,26,28,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,40,41]. Dogs are a reliable model for periodontal and peri-implant research [49]. They have tooth sizes that are comparable to humans, and they show a similar history of progression of periodontitis [48]. Testing and surgical procedures are more readily carried out in dogs, due to their size. Dogs have been used to examine the use of bone grafts and barrier materials in peri-implant regeneration. The data from previous research have been used with predictability on human subjects [49]. The data from this systematic review on safety and tolerability can be extrapolated for further research in human subjects.
The selected studies showed heterogeneity in the implant site chosen. Most of the studies [13] placed implants coated with stem cells in the mandibular canine/premolar to the molar region [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,37,38,40]. A few studies [4] used the maxillary sinus region as the site of placement [24,35,36,39]. One study did not mention the site of placement [41]. Owing to the heterogeneity of the sites, the data are not comparable, as the bone quality varies with the site of placement. The amount of cancellous bone versus cortical bone varies in the maxilla versus the mandible. The mandible presents with more cortical bone than scant cancellous bone. This can contribute to increased implant stability and enhanced osseointegration [50]. However, since a control site with an uncoated implant was used in all of the studies, the bias induced by the jaw of choice and the bone quality could be eliminated.
Most studies (14) used bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells for coating the implant. A few studies used amniotic fluid, umbilical cord, hematopoietic, dental pulp, SHED, adipose-derived, and periodontal ligament [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Bone marrow represents a good source of mesenchymal stem cells, with distinct surface markers that differentiate them from hematopoietic lineage stem cells. These cells have good pluripotency and can differentiate into osteoblasts in a favorable environment of induction factors, growth factors, and biological modifiers. The regenerative and differentiation potential of these cells is also reflected in the recruited studies. Many studies found good regeneration and osseointegration with the bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. The only demerit that we recognize is the difficulty of sourcing these cells. Obtaining bone marrow tissue requires surgical aspiration, which is painful and can involve postoperative morbidity. Mesenchymal stem cells prove to be a viable alternative. Stem cells with adequate regenerative potential can be harvested from the teeth pulp, periodontal ligament, and gingiva. Further research is required to ascertain the potential of using dental pulp-derived stem cells for peri-implant regeneration.
Various scaffolds were used in the 18 studies. The most popular scaffold material used was platelet-rich plasma [4], followed by tricalcium phosphate [3], followed by hydroxyapatite [2]. The remaining studies used Bio OSS graft, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and deproteinized bovine bone mineral; fluorohydroxyapatite (FH), BMP-2 with bFGF, and CPC; PLG scaffold, nHAC/CSH, and calcium phosphate cement [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. There was no uniformity in the type of carrier/scaffold used. The scaffolds had osteoconductive, osteoinductive, or osteogenic potential. An osteoinductive material is the most superior, as it has bone morphogenetic protein, which could differentiate the stem cells into osteoblasts. An osteoconductive material will only act as a scaffold and would serve as a bland carrier of the stem cells. The use of PRF and PRP prove advantageous, as they are autologous materials that are rich in platelets and also serve as a reservoir of growth factors, such as PDGF.
Of the 18 selected studies, many authors did not mention the details of blinding, which is not ideal [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. All the studies used the histology and histomorphometry technique for assessing bone regeneration and osseointegration. Three of the studies used sequential fluorescence labelling [24,36,41]. Two studies used micro CT [32,36] and radiography [33,37]. None of the articles that were selected used MRI for imaging. However, recent research in dentistry has reported the use of this imaging modality [51,52].
A meta-analysis could not be performed based on the data available, due to a lack of homogeneity in the type of animal, stem cells, technique, carrier, and methodology used. Hence, this systematic review is presented as a qualitative analysis. The majority of the recruited studies [13] revealed a high risk of bias. A moderate risk of bias was observed in four studies and only one study had a low risk of bias. A note of caution is due here in the interpretation of these results, as there is a lack of homogeneity in the data. This indicates the urgent need for further well-designed, high-quality standardized animal studies. At present, only two preliminary human studies are available on this topic [45,46]. The data from high-quality standardized clinical trials in animals can be extrapolated into research in human test subjects, to establish the benefits of stem cell-coated dental implants.

5. Conclusions

The present systematic review examined 18 published studies that investigated the application of stem cells on implant surfaces. Our analysis of the results revealed that stem cells, when used with graft material and scaffolds, promoted osseointegration with higher levels of new bone formation. We observed heterogeneity in the scaffolds selected. These findings emphasize the role of bioactive molecules in the promotion of stability and osseointegration in implants. The major limitation of the present review is the lack of homogeneity of the data in the selected studies, along with a high risk of bias in the majority of the studies. Future animal model research in this topic must be well designed and clearly describe the method of sequence generation, allocation concealment, randomizing, and outcome assessment, to reduce the risk of bias. This systematic review illustrates the current state of the research into the effects of stem cell-coated dental implants, and provides a basis for future randomized control trials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.E.S., M.H.M. and R.R.; methodology, M.A.A., M.M.A.-A.; software, S.B.; validation, T.B.M.; formal analysis, S.V.; investigation, A.T.R.; resources, S.P.; data curation, L.T.; writing—M.E.S., M.H.M., M.A.A., M.M.A.-A., S.B.; writing—T.B.M., S.V., A.T.R., S.P., L.T.; visualization, M.E.S., M.H.M.; supervision, S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Parnia, F.; Yazdani, J.; Maleki Dizaj, S. Applications of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Sinus Lift Augmentation as a Dental Implant Technology. Stem Cells Int. 2018, 2018, 3080139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Setzer, F.C.; Kim, S. Comparison of long-term survival of implants and endodontically treated teeth. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Levin, L. Dealing with dental implant failures. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2008, 16, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Javed, F.; Ahmed, H.B.; Crespi, R.; Romanos, G.E. Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation. Interv. Med. Appl. Sci. 2013, 5, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mittal, Y.; Jindal, G.; Garg, S. Bone manipulation procedures in dental implants. Indian J. Dent. 2016, 7, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Chen, Z.; Bachhuka, A.; Wei, F.; Wang, X.; Liu, G.; Vasilev, K.; Xiao, Y. Nanotopography-based strategy for the precise manipulation of osteoimmunomodulation in bone regeneration. Nanoscale 2017, 9, 18129–18152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, W.; Li, J.; Cheng, M.; Wang, Q.; Yeung, K.W.K.; Chu, P.K.; Zhang, X. Zinc-Modified Sulfonated Polyetheretherketone Surface with Immunomodulatory Function for Guiding Cell Fate and Bone Regeneration. Adv. Sci. 2018, 5, 1800749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Chen, L.; Wang, D.; Qiu, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Qiao, Y.; Liu, X. Synergistic effects of immunoregulation and osteoinduction of ds-block elements on titanium surface. Bioact. Mater. 2021, 6, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, Z.; Bachhuka, A.; Han, S.; Wei, F.; Lu, S.; Visalakshan, R.M.; Vasilev, K.; Xiao, Y. Tuning Chemistry and Topography of Nanoengineered Surfaces to Manipulate Immune Response for Bone Regeneration Applications. ACS Nano 2017, 11, 4494–4506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sakkas, A.; Ioannis, K.; Winter, K.; Schramm, A.; Wilde, F. Clinical results of autologous bone augmentation harvested from the mandibular ramus prior to implant placement. An analysis of 104 cases. GMS Interdiscip. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. DGPW 2016, 5, Doc21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Demetriades, N.; Park, J.I.; Laskarides, C. Alternative bone expansion technique for implant placement in atrophic edentulous maxilla and mandible. J. Oral Implantol. 2011, 37, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Pistilli, R.; Felice, P.; Piatelli, M.; Nisii, A.; Barausse, C.; Esposito, M. Blocks of autogenous bone versus xenografts for the rehabilitation of atrophic jaws with dental implants: Preliminary data from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2014, 7, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. He, S.; Nakada, D.; Morrison, S.J. Mechanisms of stem cell self-renewal. Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol. 2009, 25, 377–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Woodbury, D.; Schwarz, E.J.; Prockop, D.J.; Black, I.B. Adult rat and human bone marrow stromal cells differentiate into neurons. J. Neurosci. Res. 2000, 61, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lagasse, E.; Connors, H.; Al-Dhalimy, M.; Reitsma, M.; Dohse, M.; Osborne, L.; Wang, X.; Finegold, M.; Weissman, I.L.; Grompe, M. Purified hematopoietic stem cells can differentiate into hepatocytes in vivo. Nat. Med. 2000, 6, 1229–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wei, J.P.; Nawata, M.; Wakitani, S.; Kametani, K.; Ota, M.; Toda, A.; Konishi, I.; Ebara, S.; Nikaido, T. Human amniotic mesenchymal cells differentiate into chondrocytes. Cloning Stem Cells 2009, 11, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Garg, P.; Mazur, M.M.; Buck, A.C.; Wandtke, M.E.; Liu, J.; Ebraheim, N.A. Prospective Review of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Differentiation into Osteoblasts. Orthop. Surg. 2017, 9, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Birbrair, A. Stem Cell Microenvironments and Beyond. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2017, 1041, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tuch, B.E. Stem cells—A clinical update. Aust. Fam. Physician 2006, 35, 719–721. [Google Scholar]
  20. Petit-Zeman, S. Regenerative medicine. Nat. Biotechnol. 2001, 19, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Larsson, L.; Decker, A.M.; Nibali, L.; Pilipchuk, S.P.; Berglundh, T.; Giannobile, W.V. Regenerative Medicine for Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yin, L.; Zhou, Z.-X.; Shen, M.; Chen, N.; Jiang, F.; Wang, S.-L. The Human Amniotic Mesenchymal Stem Cells (hAMSCs) Improve the Implant Osseointegration and Bone Regeneration in Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation in Rabbits. Stem Cells Int. 2019, 2019, 9845497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Bressan, E.; Botticelli, D.; Sivolella, S.; Bengazi, F.; Guazzo, R.; Sbricoli, L.; Ricci, S.; Ferroni, L.; Gardin, C.; Velez, J.U.; et al. Adipose-Derived Stem Cells as a Tool for Dental Implant Osseointegration: An Experimental Study in the Dog. Int. J. Mol. Cell. Med. 2015, 4, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Han, X.; Liu, H.; Wang, D.; Su, F.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, W.; Li, S.; Yang, R. Alveolar bone regeneration around immediate implants using an injectable nHAC/CSH loaded with autogenic blood-acquired mesenchymal progenitor cells: An experimental study in the dog mandible. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2013, 15, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jhin, M.-J.; Kim, K.-H.; Kim, S.-H.; Kim, Y.-S.; Kim, S.-T.; Koo, K.-T.; Kim, T.-I.; Seol, Y.-J.; Ku, Y.; Rhyu, I.-C. Ex vivo bone morphogenetic protein-2 gene delivery using bone marrow stem cells in rabbit maxillary sinus augmentation in conjunction with implant placement. J. Periodontol. 2013, 84, 985–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zou, D.; Guo, L.; Lu, J.; Zhang, X.; Wei, J.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, X. Engineering of bone using porous calcium phosphate cement and bone marrow stromal cells for maxillary sinus augmentation with simultaneous implant placement in goats. Tissue Eng. Part A 2012, 18, 1464–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Marei, M.K.; Saad, M.M.; El-Ashwah, A.M.; El-Backly, R.M.; Al-Khodary, M.A. Experimental formation of periodontal structure around titanium implants utilizing bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells: A pilot study. J. Oral Implantol. 2009, 35, 106–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ito, K.; Yamada, Y.; Nakamura, S.; Ueda, M. Osteogenic potential of effective bone engineering using dental pulp stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, and periosteal cells for osseointegration of dental implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011, 26, 947–954. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pieri, F.; Lucarelli, E.; Corinaldesi, G.; Iezzi, G.; Piattelli, A.; Giardino, R.; Bassi, M.; Donati, D.; Marchetti, C. Mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma enhance bone formation in sinus grafting: A histomorphometric study in minipigs. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008, 35, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ribeiro, F.V.; Suaid, F.F.; Ruiz, K.G.S.; Rodrigues, T.L.; Carvalho, M.D.; Nociti, F.H.; Sallum, E.A.; Casati, M.Z. Effect of autologous bone marrow-derived cells associated with guided bone regeneration or not in the treatment of peri-implant defects. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 41, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, L.; Zou, D.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, J.; Pan, K.; Huang, Y. Repair of bone defects around dental implants with bone morphogenetic protein/fibroblast growth factor-loaded porous calcium phosphate cement: A pilot study in a canine model. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hao, P.-J.; Wang, Z.-G.; Xu, Q.-C.; Xu, S.; Li, Z.-R.; Yang, P.-S.; Liu, Z.H. Effect of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell in peri-implant bone defect after immediate implant: An experiment study in beagle dogs. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2014, 7, 4131–4138. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Yun, J.-H.; Han, S.-H.; Choi, S.-H.; Lee, M.-H.; Lee, S.-J.; Song, S.U.; Oh, N. Effects of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma on bone regeneration for osseointegration of dental implants: Preliminary study in canine three-wall intrabony defects. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2014, 102, 1021–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yamada, Y.; Nakamura, S.; Ito, K.; Sugito, T.; Yoshimi, R.; Nagasaka, T.; Ueda, M. A Feasibility of Useful Cell-Based Therapy by Bone Regeneration with Deciduous Tooth Stem Cells, Dental Pulp Stem Cells, or Bone-Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Clinical Study Using Tissue Engineering Technology. Tissue Eng. Part A 2010, 16, 1891–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kim, S.-H.; Kim, K.-H.; Seo, B.-M.; Koo, K.-T.; Kim, T.-I.; Seol, Y.-J.; Ku, Y.; Rhyu, I.-C.; Chung, C.-P.; Lee, Y.-M. Alveolar bone regeneration by transplantation of periodontal ligament stem cells and bone marrow stem cells in a canine peri-implant defect model: A pilot study. J. Periodontol. 2009, 80, 1815–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ito, K.; Yamada, Y.; Naiki, T.; Ueda, M. Simultaneous implant placement and bone regeneration around dental implants using tissue-engineered bone with fibrin glue, mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma. Clin. Oral Implants. Res. 2006, 17, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, L.; Zhang, W.; Lv, K.; Yu, W.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, F. Peri-Implant Bone Regeneration Using rhPDGF-BB, BMSCs, and β-TCP in a Canine Model. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 18, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, F.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, J.; Xu, M.; Zheng, W.; Huang, W.; Zhou, W.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, K.; Wu, Y.; et al. Comparison of Intraoral Bone Regeneration with Iliac and Alveolar BMSCs. J. Dent. Res. 2018, 97, 1229–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stramandinoli-Zanicotti, R.-T.; Sassi, L.-M.; Rebelatto, C.-L.-K.; Boldrine-Leite, L.M.; Brofman, P.-R.; Carvalho, A.-L. The effect of bone marrow-derived stem cells associated with platelet-rich plasma on the osseointegration of immediately placed implants. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2021, 13, e8–e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Misawa, M.Y.O.; Huynh-Ba, G.; Villar, G.M.; Villar, C.C. Efficacy of stem cells on the healing of peri-implant defects: Systematic review of preclinical studies. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2016, 2, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015, 350, g7647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Hooijmans, C.R.; Rovers, M.M.; De Vries, R.B.M.; Leenaars, M.; Ritskes-Hoitinga, M.; Langendam, M.W. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Ou, K.-L.; Weng, C.-C.; Wu, C.-C.; Lin, Y.-H.; Chiang, H.-J.; Yang, T.-S.; James, W.; Yen, Y.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Sugiatno, E. Research of StemBios Cell Therapy on Dental Implants Containing Nanostructured Surfaces: Biomechanical Behaviors, Microstructural Characteristics, and Clinical Trial. Implant. Dent. 2016, 25, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Weng, C.-C.; Ou, K.-L.; Wu, C.-Y.; Huang, Y.-H.; Wang, J.; Yen, Y.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Lin, Y.-H. Mechanism and Clinical Properties of StemBios Cell Therapy: Induction of Early Osseointegration in Novel Dental Implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, e47–e54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Park, D.; Spencer, J.A.; Koh, B.I.; Kobayashi, T.; Fujisaki, J.; Clemens, T.L.; Lin, C.P.; Kronenberg, H.M.; Scadden, D.T. Endogenous Bone Marrow MSCs Are Dynamic, Fate-Restricted Participants in Bone Maintenance and Regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 2012, 10, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Park, S.-Y.; Kim, K.-H.; Gwak, E.-H.; Rhee, S.-H.; Lee, J.-C.; Shin, S.-Y.; Koo, K.-T.; Lee, Y.-M.; Seol, Y.-J. Ex vivo bone morphogenetic protein 2 gene delivery using periodontal ligament stem cells for enhanced re-osseointegration in the regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2015, 103, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zou, D.; He, J.; Zhang, K.; Dai, J.; Zhang, W.; Wang, S.; Zhou, J.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, X. The Bone-Forming Effects of HIF-1α-Transduced BMSCs Promote Osseointegration with Dental Implant in Canine Mandible. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Barfeie, A.; Wilson, J.; Rees, J. Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 218, E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kantarci, A.; Hasturk, H.; Van Dyke, T.E. Animal models for periodontal regeneration and peri-implant responses. Periodontology 2000, 68, 66–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Haney, J.M.; Zimmerman, G.J.; Wikesjö, U.M. Periodontal repair in dogs: Evaluation of the natural disease model. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1995, 22, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zablotsky, M.; Meffert, R.; Caudill, R.; Evans, G. Histological and clinical comparisons of guided tissue regeneration on dehisced hydroxylapatite-coated and titanium endosseous implant surfaces: A pilot study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1991, 6, 294–303. [Google Scholar]
  52. Misch, C.E. Density of bone: Effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive boen loading. Int. J. Oral Implantol. 1990, 6, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.
Coatings 11 01035 g001
Table 1. Summary of the data extracted from the included studies.
Table 1. Summary of the data extracted from the included studies.
S. No.Reference NumberOrigin of Stem CellsAnimal Model UsedType and Size of Implants UsedDifferentiation/Characterization/Application of Stem CellsSite of ImplantType of DefectTotal Period of ObservationResults and Conclusion
1.[24]Human amniotic mesenchymal stem cellsTwelve New Zealand white rabbitsMini implant 1.5 mm × 5 mm (Bioconcept Co., Ltd., China)Insertion of hAMSC-gel (AMSCs re-suspended in fibrin solution) into the maxillary sinus before implant placement and only fibrin in the control groupMaxillary sinusMaxillary sinus floor elevation4 and 12 weeksBone volume, bone volume/tissue volume, bone-to-implant contact ratio, and vessel-like structures were better in the Bio OSS hAMSC group in comparison with other groups. ALP was higher in hAMSC and hAMSC/BioOSS group
2.[25]Adipose-derived stem cells
derived from dog’s Bichat bulla
Six beagle dogs10 × 3.3 mm Premium TM, Sweden and MartinaHA-based scaffolds previously seeded with ADSCsMandibular premolars and the first molarsPeri-implant–bone defect1 monthADSCs increased bone regeneration new vessels, osteoblasts, and new bone matrix, absence of inflammation
3.[26]UCMSCs (Lifeline Cell Technology, FC0020)Eight male beagle dogsSuperLine implants (Dentium Biomaterial Co., Ltd., Korea), 3.6 × 8 mmInjection of UCMSCs with PRF into the peri-implant bone defectSecond, third, and fourth mandibular premolarsPeri-implant– bone defect2, 4 and 8 weeksA significantly higher percentage of new bone formation in the case group in comparison with the control
4.[27]Human clonal bone marrow mesenchymal stem cellsFour male adult mongrel dogsGSII, Osstem, Korea 4 × 8.5 mmPlacement of cells with graft material randomly placed at the mesial bone defect areaMandibular first molars and premolarsPeri-implant– bone defect6 and 12 weeksHighest level of bone density and bone–implant contact in HA, stem cells, and PRP group (no statistical significance)
5.[28]Canine BMMSCs (cBMMSCs), canine DPSCs (cDPSCs), puppy DTSCs (pDTSCs),Adult hybrid dogs, sample size not mentioned3.7 × 7 mm HA-coated JMM implants (POI = Finatite, Japan MedicalMaterials Corporation, Osaka, Japan)Injection of the PRP, cBMMSCs PRP, cDPSCs PRP, and pDTSCs PRP admixtures into the bone defect before implant placement1st molar, 1st, 2nd and 3rd and third premolarsPeri-implant– bone defect16 weeksWell-formed mature bone and neovascularization in all the three groups in comparison with control.
Bone implant contact was highest in pDTSCs = PRP group > cDPSCs = PRP group, cBMMSCs = PRP group. PRP group. Control (statistically significant)
6.[29]Autologous periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs) and bone marrow SCs (BMSCs)Four adults, male beagle dogs3.3 × 10 mm implant (brand not mentioned)Placement of the graft material onto the defect after implant placementBilateral all mandibular premolars and first molarsPeri-implant–bone defect8 and 16 weeksHighest new bone formation in BMSC group > PDLSC > control group
7.[30]Dog mesenchymal stem cells (dMSCs) from bone marrowTwelve adult hybrid dogs3.75 × 7 mm Branemark implantsSimultaneous placement of implant and graft materialFirst molar, premolars, and the second and third premolarsPeri-implant– bone defect2, 4 and 8 weeksNatural margin bone level in dMSCs/PRP/fibrin and dMSCs/fibrin with no exposure if implant thread in comparison with only fibrin and control group.
Bone implant contact dMSCs/PRP/fibrin > dMSCs/fibrin > fibrin > control
8.[31]Autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cellsSix male adult labrador dogs3.75 × 10 mm implants (pure titanium, Cibei Medical Devices Co., Ltd. Zhejiang, Shanghai, China)Placement of graft material following implant placementBilateral first, second, third, and fourth mandibular premolar teethPeri-implant– bone defects3, 6, 9 weeksOsseointegration highest in rhPDGF-BB/BMSCs/β-TCP constructs > rhPDGF-BB/β-TCP constructs > BMSCs/βTCP constructs > TCP particles alone.
No significant differences in bone–implant contact although rhPDGF-BB/BMSCs/β-TCP constructs had the highest value
9.[32]Dog iliac bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (I-BMSCs) and alveolar bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (Al-BMSCs)Four labrador dogs4.1 × 10.0 mm Beijing Leiden Biomaterial implantPlacement of graft material following implant placementMandibular premolar regionPeri-implant– bone defects12 weeksGreater new bone formation and high bone–implant contact in Al-BMSC and I-BMSC group in comparison with the other groups and no significant difference between Al-BMSC and I-BMSC groups
10.[33]Autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells from the iliac crestFour Brazilian male adult miniature pigs3.5 × 11 mm (ConeMor- se; Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil)Placement of graft with cells before implant placementBilateral third and fourth mandibular premolar regionPeri-implant–bone defect90 daysAlthough statistically insignificant lesser implant loss rate (ILR), greater bone–implant contact (BIC), and bone density within the threads (BDWT) in the test group in comparison with the control
11.[34]Dog hematopoietic mesenchymal progenitor cells (dBMPC)Four adult male mongrel dogs3 × 10 mm Ti-24Nb-4Zr7.9Sn (T2448)1Placement of implants followed by graft in the same procedureBilateral second, third, and fourth mandibular premolarsPeri-implant–bone defect12 weeksMore bone formation in dBMPC + nHAC/CSH g than other groups. Significantly high bone–implant contact and bone density in dBMPC + nHAC/CSH g > nHAC/CSH > control
12.[35]Autologous bone marrow stem cells from the iliac crest27 mature New Zealand rabbits1.4 × 6 mm implantPlacement of graft and implant in the same procedureMaxillary sinusMaxillary sinus augmentation2, 4 and 8 weeksAt 2 and 4 weeks, greater new bone formation and bone–implant contact in the BMP-2 transduced BMSC group in comparison with other 2 groups and at 8 weeks no significant difference between all the three groups although BMP-2 BMSC > non-transduced BMSC > control
13.[36]Autologous bone marrow stem cells from the iliac crestNine healthy female goats3.3 × 12 ITI-SLA; Strauman AGSimultaneous placement of implant and graftThe maxillary second and third premolarMaxillary sinus floor elevation12 weeks/3 monthsBone formation and bone–implant contact highest in BMSCs/CPC > autogenous bone group > CPC alone group (statistically significant)
14.[37]Goat bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells from femurFive goatsTitanium fixture not mentionedPlacement of implant and graft material simultaneouslyMandibular caninePeri-implant–bone formation10 days and 4 weeksMore bone formation and PDL tissue regeneration in the case group in comparison with control.
15.[38]Dog dental pulp stem cells (dDPSC), dog bone marrow stem cells (dBMSC), and dog periosteal cells (dPC)3 dogs3.7 × 8 mm (POI·EX(FINATITE) Japan Medical MaterialsPlacement of graft with or without cells and placement of implants 8 weeks after graft placementMandibular all premolars and first molarPeri-implant–bone defect8 weeks after implant placementBone implant contact highest in dDPSC/PRP > dBMSC/PRP > dPC/PRP > control
16.[39]Bone marrow mesenchymal cells from the iliac origin8 adult minipigs3.8 × 1 mm implantXiVE; Dentsply-FriadentPlacement of graft followed by implant simultaneouslyMaxillary sinus regionMaxillary sinus augmentation12 weeks (3 months)Significant increase in bone formation and high BIC in the test group (with MSC and PRP)
17.[39]Bone marrow mesenchymal cells from the iliac originEight beagle dogs4 × 8.5 mm (Biomet-3iTM do Brasil LTDA, São Paulo, SP, Brazil)Placement of implant followed by graft material in the same procedure3rd and 4th mandibular premolarPeri-implant–bone defect12 weeks (months)Statistically significant higher bone fill in BMSC and BMSC-guided bone regeneration with control. No significant difference in bone fill in BMSC and BMSC + guided none regeneration.
Statistically significant new bone area, bone-to-implant contact, new bone height, and new bone weight in BMSC-guided bone regeneration in comparison with control
18.[41]Autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cellsFive beagle dogs3.75 × 10 mm Brånemarks dental implant (Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, SwedenPlacement of implant followed by graft in the same procedureNot clearPeri-implant–bone defect12 weeksStatistically significant mineral apposition in BMP + FGF + BMSCs + CPC > BMP + BMSCs + CPC > FGF + BMSCs + CPC > BMSC + CPC > control
Table 2. Summary of the ROB analysis of the included studies.
Table 2. Summary of the ROB analysis of the included studies.
S. No.Author/YearSelection Bias
Was the Allocation Sequence Adequately Generated and Applied?
Selection Bias
Were the Groups Similar at Baseline or Were They Adjusted for Confounders in the Analysis?
Selection Bias
Was the Allocation Adequately Concealed?
Performance Bias
Were the Animals Randomly Housed during the Experiment?
Performance Bias
Were the Caregivers and/or Investigators Blinded from Knowledge of Which Intervention Each Animal Received during the Experiment?
Detection Bias
Were Animals Selected at Random for Outcome Assessment?
Detection Bias
Was the Outcome Assessor Blinded?
Attrition Bias
Were Incomplete Outcome Data Adequately Addressed?
Reporting Bias
Are Reports of the Study Free of Selective Outcome Reporting?
Other Bias
Was the Study Apparently Free of Other Problems That Could Result in a High Risk of Bias?
Overall Score
1.Yin/2019/China [24]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesYesModerate
2.Bressa.2015/Italy [25]UnclearYesUnclearNot applicable (split-mouth design)Not applicable (split-mouth design)UnclearUnclearYesYesYesModerate
3.Hao et al./2014/China [26]UnclearYesUnclearNot applicable (split-mouth design)Not applicable (split-mouth design)UnclearUnclearYesYesYesModerate
4.Yun/2019/Koreav [27]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
5.Yamada et al./2010/Japan [28]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesUnclearHigh
6.Kim et al./2009/Korea [29]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
7.Ito et al./2005/Japan [30]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
8.Xu et al./2015/China [31]UnclearYesUnclearNot applicable as each animal received one construct from each of the groupsNot applicableUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
9.Wang et al./China/2018 [32]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
10.Zanicottiet al/2021/Brazil [33]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
11.Han et al./China/2011 [34]UnclearYesUnclearNot applicable as each animal received one construct from each of the groupsNot applicableUnclearYesYesYesYesModerate
12.Jhin et al./2012/South Korea [35]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
13.Zhou et al./2012/China [36]UnclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
14.Marei et al./2009/Egypt [37]NoYesUnclearNot applicable split-mouth designNot applicable split-mouth designUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
15.Ito et a;/2011/Japan [38]UnclearYesUnclearNot applicableNot applicableUnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
16.Pieri/2008/Italy [39]UnclearYesUnclearNot applicable (split-mouth design)Not applicable (split-mouth design)UnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
17.Ribeiro/2012/Brazil [40]YesYesunclearNot applicable (split-mouth design)Not applicable (split-mouth design)UnclearYesYesYesYesLow
18.Wang et al./2011/China [41]UnclearYesUnclearNot applicable (split-mouth design)Not applicable (split-mouth design)UnclearUnclearYesYesYesHigh
Table 3. Characterization of scaffold used.
Table 3. Characterization of scaffold used.
Number of StudiesType of Scaffold Used
4Platelet-rich plasma (PRP)
3Tricalcium phosphate (TCP)
1Bio OSS graft, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), deproteinized bovine bone mineral, PRP and fluorohydroxyapatite (FH), BMP-2 with bFGF and CPC, guided bone regeneration, PLG scaffold, nHAC/CSH, and calcium phosphate cement
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sayed, M.E.; Mugri, M.H.; Almasri, M.A.; Al-Ahmari, M.M.; Bhandi, S.; Madapusi, T.B.; Varadarajan, S.; Raj, A.T.; Reda, R.; Testarelli, L.; et al. Role of Stem Cells in Augmenting Dental Implant Osseointegration: A Systematic Review. Coatings 2021, 11, 1035.

AMA Style

Sayed ME, Mugri MH, Almasri MA, Al-Ahmari MM, Bhandi S, Madapusi TB, Varadarajan S, Raj AT, Reda R, Testarelli L, et al. Role of Stem Cells in Augmenting Dental Implant Osseointegration: A Systematic Review. Coatings. 2021; 11(9):1035.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sayed, Mohammed E., Maryam H. Mugri, Mazen A. Almasri, Manea Musa Al-Ahmari, Shilpa Bhandi, Thodur Balaji Madapusi, Saranya Varadarajan, A. Thirumal Raj, Rodolfo Reda, Luca Testarelli, and et al. 2021. "Role of Stem Cells in Augmenting Dental Implant Osseointegration: A Systematic Review" Coatings 11, no. 9: 1035.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop