The Biomimetics of Enamel: A Paradigm for Organized Biomaterials Synthesis. In: Chadwick DJ, Cardew G, editors. Ciba Foundation Symposium 205 - Dental Enamel. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2007. pp. 261-74. [DOI: 10.1002/9780470515303.ch18]

Tissue Engineering Approaches for Enamel, Dentin, and Pulp Regeneration: An Update

Stem/progenitor cells are undifferentiated cells characterized by their exclusive ability for self-renewal and multilineage differentiation potential. In recent years, researchers and investigations explored the prospect of employing stem/progenitor cell therapy in regenerative medicine, especially stem/progenitor cells originating from the oral tissues. In this context, the regeneration of the lost dental tissues including enamel, dentin, and the dental pulp are pivotal targets for stem/progenitor cell therapy. The present review elaborates on the different sources of stem/progenitor cells and their potential clinical applications to regenerate enamel, dentin, and the dental pulpal tissues.

Meeting report: a hard look at the state of enamel research

The Encouraging Novel Amelogenesis Models and Ex vivo cell Lines (ENAMEL) Development workshop was held on 23 June 2017 at the Bethesda headquarters of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). Discussion topics included model organisms, stem cells/cell lines, and tissues/3D cell culture/organoids. Scientists from a number of disciplines, representing institutions from across the United States, gathered to discuss advances in our understanding of enamel, as well as future directions for the field.

Property variations in the prism and the organic sheath within enamel by nanoindentation

Atomic force microscopy (AFM) combined with nanoindentation technique was used to definitely, site-specifically, test the nanomechanical properties, including nanohardness and elastic modulus, of the isolated domains within single enamel, the prisms and the surrounding sheaths, of mature human maxillary third molars. In this way, it is for the first time that evident differences of nanomechanical properties were revealed between these domains. The nanohardness and elastic modulus of the sheaths were about 73.6% and 52.7% lower than those of the prisms, respectively. Measuring the residual impressions with AFM supported the similar conclusion. The variations of mechanical properties in these domains are considered to be mainly relative to their different component and fibrils arrangement.