2023
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776315
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Angiogenic Potential of Various Oral Cavity–Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Cell-Derived Secretome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Madhura Shekatkar,
Supriya Kheur,
Shantanu Deshpande
et al.

Abstract: Recent evidence suggests the immense potential of human mesenchymal stem cell (hMSC) secretome conditioned medium-mediated augmentation of angiogenesis. However, angiogenesis potential varies from source and origin. The hMSCs derived from the oral cavity share an exceptional quality due to their origin from a hypoxic environment. Our systematic review aimed to compare the mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from various oral cavity sources and cell-derived secretomes, and evaluate their angiogenic potential.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 103 publications
(98 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The formation and infiltration of new blood vessel depends on getting signals from angiogenic growth factors, particularly VEGF. 6,16,17 In this study, the expression of VEGF, blood vessel, and fibroblast cell proliferation in the treatment group using CH, HA, and CH-HA was higher than that in the control groups using Ca(OH) 2 or glass ionomer. There was a significant difference between the groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…The formation and infiltration of new blood vessel depends on getting signals from angiogenic growth factors, particularly VEGF. 6,16,17 In this study, the expression of VEGF, blood vessel, and fibroblast cell proliferation in the treatment group using CH, HA, and CH-HA was higher than that in the control groups using Ca(OH) 2 or glass ionomer. There was a significant difference between the groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%