Background Physiological bone formation and bone regeneration occurring during bone repair can be considered distinct but similar processes. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) and associated biologic factors are crucial to both bone formation and bone regeneration. Aim To perform a narrative review of the current literature regarding the role of MSC and biologic factors in bone formation with the aim of discussing the clinical relevance of in vitro and in vivo animal studies. Methods The literature was searched for studies on MSC and biologic factors associated with the formation of bone in the mandible and maxilla. The search specifically targeted studies on key aspects of how stem cells and biologic factors are important in bone formation and how this might be relevant to bone regeneration. The results are summarized in a narrative review format. Results Different types of MSC and many biologic factors are associated with bone formation in the maxilla and mandible. Conclusion Bone formation and regeneration involve very complex and highly regulated cellular and molecular processes. By studying these processes, new clinical opportunities will arise for therapeutic bone regenerative treatments.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective/Hypothesis The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the impact of dental care on head and neck (H&N) cancer survival. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL to find all relevant studies from the date of inception to March 2020. Systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, and meta‐analysis was performed using the random effects logistic regression model. Primary outcomes of interest were 5‐year survival and hazard ratios comparing survival between dental care subgroups. Results H&N cancer survival rates strongly correlate with dental care adherence. Patients with good dental care had significantly better survival than patients with poor dental care (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55–0.83), with similar improved survival among patients with moderate versus poor dental care (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57–0.80). In addition, patients with good dental care had significantly decreased mortality than those with moderate dental care (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69–0.96), indicating an exposure‐response gradient. Conclusions For patients with H&N cancer, survival is significantly higher in those who receive recommended dental care compared with those who do not. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 132:45–52, 2022

No abstract