Evidence Hub

Osteoblastic Differentiation and Proliferation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells or Osteoblast-like Cells on Bone Scaffolds in Oral and Periodontal Surgery: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

Luca Coccoluto, Roberto Rotundo, Panina Paola, Francesca Ruffini, Vinci Raffaele

Journal of Advanced Oral Research, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Aim: This systematic review critically evaluates in vitro studies on the osteoblastic behavior of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) and human osteoblast-like cells on three-dimensional (3D) bone scaffold materials. The review identifies key osteogenic proliferation and differentiation determinants and explores their potential clinical implications in oral and periodontal surgery. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published up to May 3, 2025. Inclusion criteria were limited to in vitro studies, written in English, investigating osteogenic proliferation and differentiation of hMSCs or human osteoblast-like cells on xenograft granule-shaped or block-formed scaffolds. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using established parameters for cell culture research. Results: The review included 22 studies out of 931 screened articles. Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) was the most frequently investigated biomaterial. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, osteocalcin immunoassay, and morphological analysis were identified as key tools for assessing in vitro osteoblast differentiation. Significant heterogeneity in scaffold composition and experimental design precluded meta-analysis, and results were synthesized narratively. Conclusions: Xenogeneic bone substitutes, particularly DBBM, demonstrate optimal osteoconductivity in vitro . While these in vitro…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic 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