METHODS: Review of the literature was conducted using keywords (and MeSH) like Bioreactor, Regenerative Dentistry, Fourth Factor, Stem Cells, etc., from the journals published in English. All the searched abstracts, published in indexed journals were read and reviewed to further refine the list of included articles. Based on the relevance of abstracts pertaining to the manuscript, full-text articles were assessed.
RESULTS: Bioreactors provide a prerequisite platform to create, test, and validate the biomaterials and techniques proposed for dental tissue regeneration. Flow perfusion, rotational, spinner-flask, strain and customize-combined bioreactors have been applied for the regeneration of bone, periodontal ligament, gingiva, cementum, oral mucosa, temporomandibular joint and vascular tissues. Customized bioreactors can support cellular/biofilm growth as well as apply cyclic loading. Center of disease control & dip-flow biofilm-reactors and micro-bioreactor have been used to evaluate the biological properties of dental biomaterials, their performance assessment and interaction with biofilms. Few case reports have also applied the concept of in vivo bioreactor for the repair of musculoskeletal defects and used customdesigned bioreactor (Aastrom) to repair the defects of cleft-palate.
CONCLUSIONS: Bioreactors provide a sterile simulated environment to support cellular differentiation for oro-dental regenerative applications. Also, bioreactors like, customized bioreactors for cyclic loading, biofilm reactors (CDC & drip-flow), and micro-bioreactor, can assess biological responses of dental biomaterials by simultaneously supporting cellular or biofilm growth and application of cyclic stresses.
BACKGROUND: A cocktail of ascorbic acid, β-glycerophosphate, and dexamethasone has been widely used to induce osteoblast differentiation. However, under certain conditions, β-glycerophosphate and dexamethasone can cause a decrease in cell viability in stem cells.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the cytotoxic effect and potential of ascorbic acid as the sole inducer of osteoblast differentiation.
METHODS: Cytotoxicity analyses in the presence of 10-500 µg/mL ascorbic acid were performed in both cell types using a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The concentrations below the IC50 (i.e., 10-150 µg/mL) were used to determine osteoblast differentiation potential of ascorbic acid using the alkaline phosphatase (ALP) assay, von Kossa staining, and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.
RESULTS: SHEDs and DPSCs proliferated for 21 days, expressed a Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) marker (CD73+), and did not express Hematopoietic Stem Cell (HSC) markers (CD34- and SLAMF1-). SHEDs had a higher range of IC50 values (215-240 µg/mL ascorbic acid), while the IC50 values for DPSCs were 177-211 µg/mL after 24-72 hours. SHEDs treated with 10-100 µg/mL ascorbic acid alone exhibited higher ALP-specific activity and a higher percentage of mineralisation than DPSCs. Both cell types expressed osteoblast markers on day 21, i.e., RUNX2+ and BSP+, in the presence of ascorbic acid.
CONCLUSIONS: SHEDs survive at higher concentrations of ascorbic acid as compared to DPSC. The cytotoxic effect was only exhibited at ≥250 µg/mL ascorbic acid. In addition, SHED exhibited better ALP and mineralization activities, but lower osteoblast marker expression than DPSC in response to ascorbic acid as the sole inducer.
OBJECTIVE: This paper highlights the similarities and differences among these cell subpopulations, particularly between intraoral fibroblasts (human periodontal ligament, gingival and oral mucosa fibroblasts) and dermal fibroblasts based on several factors including their morphology, growth and proliferation rate.
RESULTS: It could be suggested that each subpopulation of fibroblasts demonstrate different positionspecified gene signatures and responses towards extracellular signals. These dissimilarities are crucial to be taken into consideration to employ specific methodologies in stimulating these cells in vivo.
CONCLUSION: A comparison of the characteristics of these cell subpopulations is desired for identifying appropriate cellular applications.
AIM: Thus, this review is focused on understanding their potential uses and factors influencing their pluripotent status in vitro.
CONCLUSION: In short, this cell source could be an ideal cellular resource for pluripotent cells for potential applications in allogeneic cellular replacement therapies, fetal tissue engineering, pharmaceutical screening, and in disease modelling.