4.8 Article

Postnatal epithelium and mesenchyme stem/progenitor cells in bioengineered amelogenesis and dentinogenesis

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 2172-2180

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.11.061

Keywords

Epithelial; Mesenchymal; Stem cells; BMP; Wnt; Tooth regeneration

Funding

  1. NIH [R01DE023112, RC2DE020767]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rodent incisors provide a classic model for studying epithelial mesenchymal interactions in development. However, postnatal stem/progenitor cells in rodent incisors have not been exploited for tooth regeneration. Here, we characterized postnatal rat incisor epithelium and mesenchyme stem/progenitor cells and found that they formed enamel- and dentin-like tissues in vivo. Epithelium and mesenchyme cells were harvested separately from the apical region of postnatal 4-5 day rat incisors. Epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes were confirmed by immunocytochemistry, CFU assay and/or multi-lineage differentiation. CK14+, Sox2+ and Lgr5+ epithelium stem cells from the cervical loop enhanced amelogenin and ameloblastin expression upon BMP4 or FGF3 stimulation, signifying their differentiation towards ameloblast-like cells, whereas mesenchyme stem/progenitor cells upon BMP4, BMP7 and Wnt3a treatment robustly expressed Dspp, a hallmark of odontoblastic differentiation. We then control-released microencapsulated BMP4, BMP7 and Wnt3a in transplants of epithelium and mesenchyme stem/progenitor cells in the renal capsule of athymic mice in vivo. Enamel and dentin-like tissues were generated in two integrated layers with specific expression of amelogenin and ameloblastin in the newly formed, de novo enamel-like tissue, and DSP in dentin-like tissue. These findings suggest that postnatal epithelium and mesenchyme stem/progenitor cells can be primed towards bioengineered tooth regeneration. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available