METHODS: Guided by the PRISMA framework, we conducted a rigorous search through the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases, analyzing 254 articles. Each article was scrutinized against pre-defined inclusion criteria, yielding a refined selection of 14 studies worthy of in-depth analysis.
RESULTS: The trends in using morphological approaches were identified for analyzing osteoblast and osteoclast differentiation. The three most used techniques for osteoblasts were Alizarin Red S (mineralization; six articles), von Kossa (mineralization; three articles) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP; two articles) followed by one article on Giemsa staining (cell morphology) and finally immunochemistry (three articles involved Vinculin, F-actin and Col1 biomarkers). For osteoclasts, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP staining) has the highest number of articles (six articles), followed by two articles on DAPI staining (cell morphology), and immunochemistry (two articles with VNR, Cathepsin K and TROP2. The study involved four stem cell types: peripheral blood monocyte, mesenchymal, dental pulp, and periodontal ligament.
CONCLUSION: This review offers a valuable resource for researchers, with Alizarin Red S and TRAP staining being the most utilized morphological procedures for osteoblasts and osteoclasts, respectively. This understanding provides a foundation for future research in this rapidly changing field.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in Pubmed, and Scopus, and relevant studies published between 2015 and 2020 were selected following the PRISMA guideline. The main inclusion criteria were that articles must be revolving on method for osteoblast differentiation in vitro study. Therefore, in vivo and human or animal clinical studies were excluded. The search outcomes identified all articles containing the word "odontoblast", "differentiation", and "mesenchymal stem cell".
RESULTS: The literature search identified 99 related studies, but only 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. These include 5 odontoblastic differentiation induction with scaffold, 6 inductions without scaffolds. The data collected were characterised into two main categories: type of cells undergo odontoblastic differentiation, and odontoblastic differentiation techniques using scaffolds or non-scaffold.
CONCLUSION: Based on the data analysis, the scaffold-based odontoblastic induction method seems to be a better option compared to the non-scaffold method. In addition of that, the combination of growth factors in scaffold-based methods could possibly enhance the differentiation. Thus, further detailed studies are still required to understand the mechanism and the way to enhance odontoblastic differentiation.
METHODS: Respiratory epithelial cells were isolated and divided into four groups: control (untreated), treated with 0.05% OE (OE group), EMT induced with 5 ng/ml of transforming growth factor beta-1 (TGFβ1 group) and treated with 5 ng/ml TGFβ1 + 0.05% OE (TGFβ1 + OE group). The effects of OE treatment on growth kinetics, morphology and protein expression in RECs were evaluated. Immunocytochemistry analysis was performed to quantitate the total percentage of E-cadherin and vimentin expression from day 1 to day 3.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between untreated RECs and OE-treated RECs in terms of their morphology, growth kinetics and protein expression. Induction with TGFβ1 caused RECs to have an elongated spindle shape, a slower proliferation rate, a higher expression of vimentin and a lower expression of E-cadherin compared with the control. Cells in the TGFβ1 + OE group had similar epithelial shape to untreated group however it had no significant differences in their proliferation rate when compared to TGFβ1-induced RECs. Cells treated with TGFβ1 + OE showed significantly reduced expression of vimentin and increased expression of E-cadherin compared with the TGFβ1 group (P