Table 2: Randomized clinical trials in the use of MSCs for oral bone tissue regeneration.

ReferenceStem cell typeColectionSubcultureOriginCarrierDefect typeGraft locationCoverControlTime for analysisAnalysisPrimary outcomesImplantsRestorationFollow-up after restorationImplant survival rateComplications

Da Costa et al. [18]MSCBMANo (whole aspirate)IB5 + 5ABHorizontalAMNOAB6 mCT + HmAlveolar thickness gain: 4.6 ± 1.43 versus 2.15 ± 0.47 mm (test versus control); vital bone: 60.7 ± 16.18 versus 41.4 ± 12.5% (test versus control)Yes (40)YesN/S100%N/S

Gimbel et al. [19]N/SBMANo (whole aspirate)IB21 tests + 25 controlsCSCleft palateAMNOIB1 d, 1 w, 3 w, 6 w, 6 mComfort and complications for donor siteBest results in test group followed by conventional iliac graft NoNoN/AN/ATest: 2 granulation tissues; control: 1 oronasal fistula

Gonshor et al. [15]MSCCBANoN/S 18: 8 bilats + 10 unilats (=26) CBASinus liftPMNOAllograft3.6 ± 0.6 mH + Hm + CTVital bone: 32.5 ± 6.8% (test) - 18.3 ± 10.6% (control)YesNoN/SN/S2 patients lost

Kaigler et al. [20]MSCBMA Yes (automated Ixmyelocel-T)IB12 + 12CSAlveolar reconstructionM and MnCMCS + CM6 or 12 wRX + μCT + HLinear bone height: 55.3%–78.9 (6 w, control versus test); 74.6%–80.1% (12 w, control versus test)YesYes1 yearN/SN/S

Pelegrine et al. [21]MSCBMANo (whole aspirate)IB15 + 15NoAlveolar reconstructionAMNONo graft6 mClinical data + H + HmHorizontal bone loss: 1.14 ± 0.87 versus 2.46 ± 0.4 mm (test versus control); vertical bone loss: 1.17 ± 0.26 mm versus 0.62 ± 0.51 mm (test versus control); new vital bone: 45.47±7.21 versus 42.87 ± 11.33%Yes (20)YesN/S100%5 control sites required regraft at implant placement

Rickert et al. [16]MNCBMANo (BMAC)IB12 split mouths (24 sinuses)BBMSinus liftPMCMBBM + retromolar autogenous graft14.8 ± 0.7 wHmNew bone (test versus control): 17.7 ± 7.3% versus 12.0 ± 6.6%Yes (66 nonsubmerged)YesN/SN/S3 implant failures

Sauerbier et al. [22]MSCBMANo (BMAC)IB7 patients (12 sites; test) + 4 (6; control)BBMSinus liftPMCMFICOLL3 mH + HmSimilar results for all parametersYesYes1 y98%1 implant lost in the test group

Sauerbier et al. [17]MSCBMANo (BMAC)IB26 patients (45 sinuses) 34 tests/11 controlsBBMSinus liftPMCMBBM + Retromolar Autogenous graft3.46 ± 0.43 m test/3.34 ± 0.42 m controlCT + H + HmRadiographic volume gain: 1.74 ± 0.69 versus 1.33 ± 0.62 mL (test versus control); new bone formation: 12.6 ± 1.7 versus 14.3 ± 1.8%NoNoN/SN/A1 inferior alveolar nerve injury during autogenous graft harvesting

Wojtowicz et al. [23]MNCBMANonprocessed BMA, CD34+ cells isolated from BMA or PRPIB17 (9 CD34+/4 BMA/4 PRP) BBMCystectomyAMnFM + CMNo graft1 & 3 mRXSimilar trabeculae to nonregenerated bone in BMA and CD34+ groupsNoNoN/SN/AN/S

MSC = mesenchymal stem cells; MNC = mononuclear cells; ASC = adipose stem cells; N/S = not specified; BMA = bone marrow aspirate; CBA = cellular bone allograft; BMAC = bone marrow aspirate concentrate; IB = iliac bone; AB = allogenic block; CS = collagen sponge; BBM = bovine bone marrow; AM = anterior maxilla; PM = posterior maxilla; M = maxilla; Mn = mandible; AMn = anterior mandible; CM = collagen membrane; FM = fibrin membrane; d = days; w = weeks; m = months; y = years; H = histology; Hm = histomorphometry; CT = computed tomography; RX = radiography; N/A = not applicable.