Objective
To evaluate the potential efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in periodontal regeneration in humans on the following main outcomes: clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and gingival recession (GR).
Background
The clinical application of stem cells in periodontal regeneration has begun in recent years, but clinical practices are not yet standardized and no recommendations are available at this time.
Methods
Electronic database searches and hand searches were conducted. All types of studies, case series, and case reports were qualitatively described. Double‐blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating MSCs in periodontal regeneration were included in a meta‐analysis if they compared administration of MSCs vs application of stem cell‐free therapy in the control group, in healthy patients with periodontal defects, with a minimum of three mo of follow‐up.
Results
Fifteen reports were included in qualitative analysis, involving 123 patients and 158 periodontal defects. Only two small RCTs at high risk of bias, with a total of 59 patients and 70 periodontal defects, were included in the meta‐analysis. A small but significant difference between test and control groups was found for CAL at three mo (−0.90 mm, 95% CI [−1.51; −0.29]), but not for PD and GR.
Conclusion
Low‐quality evidence suggests that MSC‐based therapy may have a small impact on periodontal regeneration. However, due to the monocentric character, the small sample size, and potential heterogeneity across the two included RCTs, these results must not be considered as definitive. High‐quality RCTs are needed before any clinical use of MSCs in periodontal regeneration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.