. 2016 Nov 23;2016:3846971. doi: 10.1155/2016/3846971

Table 2.

Studies comparing A-CEAC and BM-CEAC without osteogenic gene transfection or differentiation prior to implantation. Only data related to bone formation is shown. All studies used CEAC from 2nd to 5th passages. p values shown when available. Adapted with modifications from Liao and Chen [13].

Author	Cell origin	Cell characterization	Animal model	Scaffold	Observation time	Analytic method	Outcome
Brocher et al. [27]	Human	Adherence, CD105+, CD73+, CD90+, CD34−, CD45−	Subcutaneous in mice	TCP granules	8 weeks	Histology (new bone observed in specimens)	A-CEAC: 0/22 BM-CEAC: 11/14
Brocher et al. [27]	Human	Adherence, CD105+, CD73+, CD90+, CD34−, CD45−	Subcutaneous in mice	TCP granules	12 weeks	Histology (new bone observed in specimens)	A-CEAC 2/6 BM-CEAC 5/6

Hayashi et al. [28]	Rat	Adherence, CD90+, CD29+, CD45−	Subcutaneous	HA disk	6 weeks	μCT (bone volume)	A-CEAC^a 0.05 mm³ ± 0.05 BM-CEAC 6.85 mm³ ± 1.89 (p < 0.001)
Hayashi et al. [28]	Rat	Adherence, CD90+, CD29+, CD45−	Subcutaneous	HA disk	6 weeks	Histology (new bone observed in specimens)	A-CEAC: none BM-CEAC: all

Jo et al. [29]	Human	Adherence, CD105+, CD73+, CD90+, CD34−, CD45−, HLA-DR-	Segmental femur defect in rat	HA/TCP (60%/40%) cylinder	12 weeks	X-ray (bone formation score [30]⁠)	BM-CEAC^b: 4.00 ± 0.63 A-CEAC^b: 3.17 ± 0.75 (n.s.)
Jo et al. [29]	Human	Adherence, CD105+, CD73+, CD90+, CD34−, CD45−, HLA-DR-	Segmental femur defect in rat	HA/TCP (60%/40%) cylinder	12 weeks	CT (BV/TV)	BM-CEAC: 14.2% ± 1.4 A-CEAC: 10.4% ± 1.2 (p < 0.05)

Kang et al. [31]	Dog	Adherence, CD73+, CD90+, CD44+, CD34−, CD45−, CD14−	Segmental radius defect	TCP/PLGC	20 weeks	X-ray (radiographic healing)	BM-CEAC^c: 7/8 A-CEAC^c: 6/8
Kang et al. [31]	Dog	Adherence, CD73+, CD90+, CD44+, CD34−, CD45−, CD14−	Segmental radius defect	TCP/PLGC	20 weeks	Histomorphometry (BV/TV)	A-CEAC: 33.90% ± 4.31 BM-CEAC: 33.56% ± 8.09 (n.s.)

Liao and Chen [13]	Human	Adherence	Spinal fusion in rats	Collagen sponge	8 weeks	μCT (BV/TV)	Insignificant difference between A-CEAC^d and BM-CEAC^d
Liao and Chen [13]	Human	Adherence	Spinal fusion in rats	Collagen sponge	8 weeks	Histology (description)	No bridging observed in A-CEAC or BM-CEAC groups

Niemeyer et al. [18]	Sheep	Adherence, differentiation into bone/cartilage/fat	Segmental tibia defect	Mineralized collagen type I	26 weeks	X-ray (relative bone area in defect)	A-CEAC inferior to BM-CEAC (p < 0.05)^e
Niemeyer et al. [18]	Sheep	Adherence, differentiation into bone/cartilage/fat	Segmental tibia defect	Mineralized collagen type I	26 weeks	Histomorphometry (BV/TV)	A-CEAC inferior to BM-CEAC (p < 0.01)

Wen et al. [32]	Human	Adherence CD105+, CD90+, CD29+, CD44+, CD34−, differentiation into bone/fat	Calvarial defect in rats	Collagen gel	8 weeks	X-ray (average grey level)	Insignificant difference between A-CEAC and BM-CEAC

This study	Sheep	Adherence	Subcutaneous in mice	HA granules	8 weeks	Histomorphometry (BV/TV)	A-CEAC: 1.78% ± 0.91 BM-CEAC: 20.87% ± 3.70 (p < 0.0017)^f

^aA-CEAC from pellet shown here, ^bundifferentiated groups shown here, ^ctime to healing was not significant, ^dtransfected with LacZ reporter gene; data available only in figure, ^edata available only in figure, and ^f p value corresponds to p < 0.01 prior to Bonferroni correction.