Evidence Hub

CRISPR-Based Genome Editing in Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine: Bridging in Vitro and Animal Models to Clinical Translation

Farshad Shahkhah, Mehran Bahmani, Diana Abbasi, Faezeh Sadat Moazzeni, A. Shahinzadeh, Fatemeh Keikha, Marziyeh Saki

Journal of Lab Animal Research, 2025

Abstract

The emergence of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas genome-editing technology represents fundamental changes with significant implications for oral and maxillofacial medicine. The present study aimed to synthesize current evidence from fundamental in vitro studies, engineered animal models, and emerging clinical trials to critically evaluate the potential applications and challenges of this biotechnology. The current review explored the transformative effects of CRISPR-Cas9 in key issues, including developing animal models for oral cancer and hereditary syndromes, ex vivo cell engineering for immunotherapies such as Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T cells) for head and neck cancers, regenerative strategies using CRISPR-enhanced induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) for salivary gland and enamel repair, and rapid diagnostic platforms for oral pathogens. Although preclinical data from murine models and organoid systems offered considerable potential for target validation and mechanistic understanding, their adoption in clinical settings is constrained by significant limitations. These limitations included the lack of tissue-specific delivery vectors, including standard lipid nanoparticles or viral vectors, unresolved off-target effects, long-term safety concerns, and complex ethical and regulatory challenges. The most immediate clinical impact was anticipated in two key areas, including CRISPR-based diagnostic tools such as the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a review, done in animal and cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free