TABLE 1.
Intra-oral | |||||
Cell type | Method | Donor tissue | Recipient tissue | Outcome | Reference(s) |
Keratinocytes |
TEOM |
Hard palate | Tongue (intra-oral wound) | Improved tissue adhesion, speech and tongue mobility | Lauer and Schimming, 2001 |
Keratinised oral mucosa on human dermis (AlloDerm®) | Tongue, alveolar gingiva, buccal mucosa, floor of mouth and Oropharyngeal mucosa | No postoperative pain, excellent adhesiveness and good epithelial coverage | Izumi et al., 2003 | ||
Gingiva keratinocytes on human dermis (AlloDerm®) | Tongue, gingiva, buccal mucosa and alveolar ridge | Faster healing, negligible scar contracture | Hotta et al., 2007 | ||
Hard palate keratinocytes on human dermis (AlloDerm®) | Gingiva | Good adhesiveness, increased gingival tissue | Izumi et al., 2013 | ||
Keratinocytes and fibroblasts |
TEOM |
Buccal mucosa | Tongue | Good mobility of tongue, satisfactory speech, residual fibrosis | Llames et al., 2014 |
Palatal mucosa | Fibula flaps for maxillary and mandibular reconstruction | Granulation tissue formation in one patient, good restoring outcome | Gil et al., 2015 | ||
Fat pad |
Grafting |
Buccal fat | Posterior alveolus and hard palate | Full recovery | Egyedi, 1977 |
Buccal fat | Mid-palatal and posterior palatal fistulas | Full recovery | Ashtiani et al., 2011 | ||
Buccal fat | Palatal fistulas | Full recovery | Yaguchi et al., 2021 | ||
Fibroblasts |
Injection |
Gingiva | Gingiva | Test treatment improved papillary tissue augmentation | McGuire and Scheyer, 2007 |
Scaffold |
Gingiva | Gingiva | Increased gingival width, keratinised epithelium supported by dense connective tissue | Mohammadi et al., 2011 | |
Gingiva | Gingiva | Efficient gingival augmentation | Dominiak et al., 2012 | ||
Extra-oral | |||||
Epithelial flap | TEOM |
Buccal mucosa | Trachea | Faster healing, buccal mucosa and fascia form an optimised tissue combination | Delaere et al., 2001 |
Keratinocytes |
TEOM |
Buccal mucosa | Eye | Vision restored, no complications | Nishida et al., 2004 |
Lip | Skin (scalp) | 30% success of engraftment due to local infection | Iida et al., 2005 | ||
Buccal mucosa | Oesophagus | Effective re-epithelialisation, no dysphagia or stricture formation | Ohki et al., 2012 | ||
Buccal mucosa | Oesophagus | Safe, reduced risk for post-ESD stricture formation | Jonas et al., 2016 | ||
Buccal mucosa | Oesophagus | Short post-ESD ulcer healing period, successful cell sheet fabrication, transport and transplantation. | Yamaguchi et al., 2017 | ||
Lingual tissue | Grafting |
Ventrolateral tongue | Urethra | Good success rates of reconstruction of short strictures, combination with buccal mucosa for longer grafts | Simonato et al., 2008 |
Buccal mucosal cells | TEOM |
Buccal mucosa | Urethra | Safe and effective anterior urethroplasty | Barbagli et al., 2018 |
Comparison of the outcomes according to the tissue of origin, the therapeutic method used and the recipient tissue. TEOM, tissue-engineered oral mucosa; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection.