Periodontitis is a common chronic inflammatory disease, which causes the destruction of both the soft and mineralized tissues. However, current treatments such as bone graft materials, barrier membranes, and protein products all have difficulties in regenerating the complete periodontal tissue structure. Stem cell-based tissue engineering has now emerged as one of the most effective treatments for the patients suffering from periodontal diseases. Plants not only can be substrates for life processes, but also contain hormones or functional molecules. Numbers of preclinical studies have revealed that products from plant can be successfully applied in modulating proliferation and differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Plant-derived substances can induce stem cells osteogenic differentiation, and they also possess angiogenic potency. Furthermore, in the field of tissue engineering, plant-derived compounds or plant extracts can be incorporated with biomaterials or utilized as biomaterials for cell transplantation. So it is speculated that botanical products may become a new perspective in stem cell-based periodontal regeneration. However, the lack of achieving predict clinical efficacy and quality control has been the major impediment to its extensive application. This review gives an overview of the prospect of applying different plant-derived substances in various human mesenchymal stem cells-based periodontal regeneration.

No abstract

No abstract

The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the literatures on the effect of treatment combining 9300 nm carbon dioxide (CO2) lasers and fluoride on prevention of enamel caries. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The keywords were ((9300 nm) OR (9.3 µm) OR (carbon dioxide laser) OR (carbon dioxide lasers) OR (CO2 laser) OR (CO2 lasers)) AND ((fluoride) OR (fluorides)) AND ((dental caries) OR (caries) OR (remineralization) OR (remineralization) OR (demineralization) OR (demineralization)). Meta-analysis was performed to compare the change in mineral content by laser irradiation and fluoride treatment (F + L) with that of fluoride treatment (F) and laser treatment (L). The search identified 946 potential publications and five laboratory studies using a chemical model for cariogenic challenge and determining mineral loss of the enamel were included in this review. Meta-analysis comparing F + L with L on enamel showed a standard mean difference of −1.58 (CI: −2.13, −1.03). Meta-analysis comparing F + L with F on enamel showed a standard mean difference of −1.84 (CI: −2.30, −1.39), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 49%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, F + L was better than L and F in preventing enamel demineralization.