Research of StemBios Cell Therapy on Dental Implants Containing Nanostructured Surfaces: Biomechanical Behaviors, Microstructural Characteristics, and Clinical Trial

The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this report was to provide a review of the minipig intraoral dental implant model including a meta-analysis to estimate osseointegration and crestal bone remodeling.

METHODS

A systematic review including PubMed and EMBASE databases through June 2021 was conducted. Two independent examiners screened titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles. Studies evaluating titanium dental implant osseointegration in native alveolar bone were included. A quality assessment of reporting was performed. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were produced for bone-implant contact (BIC), first BIC, and crestal bone level.

RESULTS

125 out of 249 full-text articles were reviewed, 55 original studies were included. Quality of reporting was generally low, omissions included animal characteristics, examiner masking/calibration, and sample size calculation. The typical minipig model protocol included surgical extraction of the mandibular premolars and first molar, 12±4 wks post-extraction healing, placement of three narrow regular length dental implants per jaw quadrant, submerged implant healing and 8 wks of osseointegration. Approximately 90% of studies reported undecalcified incandescent light microscopy histometrics. Overall, mean BIC was 59.88% (95%CI: 57.43-62.33). BIC increased significantly over time (p<0.001): 40.93 (95%CI: 34.95-46.90) at 2 wks, 58.37% (95%CI: 54.38-62.36) at 4 wks, and 66.33% (95%CI: 63.45-69.21) beyond 4 wks. Variability among studies was mainly explained by differences in observation interval post-extraction and post-implant placement, and implant surface. Heterogeneity was high for all studies (I2 > 90%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The minipig intraoral dental implant model appears to effectively demonstrate osseointegration and alveolar bone remodeling similar to that observed in humans and canine models.

Pre-Clinical Models in Implant Dentistry: Past, Present, Future

Biomedical research seeks to generate experimental results for translation to clinical settings. In order to improve the transition from bench to bedside, researchers must draw justifiable conclusions based on data from an appropriate model. Animal testing, as a prerequisite to human clinical exposure, is performed in a range of species, from laboratory mice to larger animals (such as dogs or non-human primates). Minipigs appear to be the animal of choice for studying bone surgery around intraoral dental implants. Dog models, well-known in the field of dental implant research, tend now to be used for studies conducted under compromised oral conditions (biofilm). Regarding small animal models, research studies mostly use rodents, with interest in rabbit models declining. Mouse models remain a reference for genetic studies. On the other hand, over the last decade, scientific advances and government guidelines have led to the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of all animal models in dental implant research. In new development strategies, some in vivo experiments are being progressively replaced by in vitro or biomaterial approaches. In this review, we summarize the key information on the animal models currently available for dental implant research and highlight (i) the pros and cons of each type, (ii) new levels of decisional procedures regarding study objectives, and (iii) the outlook for animal research, discussing possible non-animal options.

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

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.

Small blood stem cells for enhancing early osseointegration formation on dental implants: a human phase I safety study

Background

Small blood stem cells (SB cells), isolated from human peripheral blood, demonstrated the ability to benefit bone regeneration and osseointegration. The primary goal of our study is to examine the safety and tolerability of SB cells in dental implantation for human patients with severe bone defects.

Methods

Nine patients were enrolled and divided into three groups with SB cell treatment doses of 1 × 10⁵, 1 × 10⁶, and 1 × 10⁷ SB cells, and then evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans to assess bone mineral density (BMD) by Hounsfield units (HU) scoring. Testing was conducted before treatment and on weeks 4, 6, 8, and 12 post dental implantation. Blood and comprehensive chemistry panel testing were also performed.

Results

No severe adverse effects were observed for up to 6-month trial. Grade 1 leukocytosis, anemia, and elevated liver function were observed, but related with the patient’s condition or the implant treatment itself and not the transplantation of SB cells. The levels of cytokines and chemokines were detected by a multiplex immunological assay. Elevated levels of eotaxin, FGF2, MCP-1, MDC, and IL17a were found among patients who received SB cell treatment. This observation suggested SB cells triggered cytokines and chemokines for local tissue repair. To ensure the efficacy of SB cells in dental implantation, the BMD and maximum stresses via stress analysis model were measured through CT scanning. All patients who suffered from severe bone defect showed improvement from D3 level to D1 or D2 level. The HU score acceleration can be observed by week 2 after guided bone regeneration (GBR) and prior to dental implantation.

Conclusions

This phase I study shows that treatment of SB cells for dental implantation is well tolerated with no major adverse effects. The use of SB cells for accelerating the osseointegration in high-risk dental implant patients warrants further phase II studies.

Trial registration

Taiwan Clinical Trial Registry (SB-GBR001) and clinical trial registry of the United States (NCT04451486).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13287-021-02461-z.

In situ bioprinting - Bioprinting from benchside to bedside?

Bioprinting technologies have been advancing at the convergence of automation, digitalization, and new tissue engineering (TE) approaches. In situ bioprinting may be favored during certain situations when compared with the conventional in vitro bioprinting when de novo tissues are to be printed directly on the intended anatomical location in the living body. To date, few attempts have been made to fabricate in situ tissues, which can be safely arrested and immobilized while printing in preclinical living models. In this review, we have explained the need and utility for in situ bioprinting with regard to the conventional bioprinting approach. The two main in situ bioprinting approaches, namely, robotic arm and handheld approaches, have been defined and differentiated. The various studies involving in situ fabrication of skin, bone, and cartilage tissues have been elucidated. Finally, we have also discussed the advantages, challenges, and the prospects in the field of in situ bioprinting modalities in line with parallel technological advancements. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: In situ bioprinting may be favored during certain situations when compared with the conventional in vitro bioprinting when tissues are to be fabricated or repaired directly on the intended anatomical location in the living body, using the body as a bioreactor. However, the technology requires a lot more improvement to fabricate complex tissues in situ, which could eventually be possible through the multi-disciplinary innovations in tissue engineering. This review explains the need and utility and current approaches by handheld and robotic modes for in situ bioprinting. The latest studies involving in situ fabrication of skin, bone, and cartilage tissues have been elucidated. The review also covers the background studies, advantages, technical and ethical challenges, and possible suggestions for future improvements.