Osteoarthritis is a common cause of disability worldwide. Although commonly referred to as a disease of the joint cartilage, osteoarthritis affects all joint tissues equally. The pathogenesis of this degenerative process is not completely understood; however, a low-grade inflammation leading to an imbalance between anabolic and katabolic processes is a well-established factor. The complex network of cytokines regulating these processes and cell communication has a central role in the development and progression of osteoarthritis. Concentrations of both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines were found to be altered depending on the osteoarthritis stage and activity. In this review, we analyzed individual cytokines involved in the immune processes with an emphasis on their function in osteoarthritis.

Being the most common musculoskeletal progressive condition, osteoarthritis is an interesting target for research. It is estimated that the prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) among adults 60 years of age or older is approximately 10% in men and 13% in women, making knee OA one of the leading causes of disability in elderly population. Today, we know that osteoarthritis is not a disease characterized by loss of cartilage due to mechanical loading only, but a condition that affects all of the tissues in the joint, causing detectable changes in tissue architecture, its metabolism and function. All of these changes are mediated by a complex and not yet fully researched interplay of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, growth factors and adipokines, all of which can be measured in the serum, synovium and histological samples, potentially serving as biomarkers of disease stage and progression. Another key aspect of disease progression is the epigenome that regulates all the genetic expression through DNA methylation, histone modifications, and mRNA interference. A lot of work has been put into developing non-surgical treatment options to slow down the natural course of osteoarthritis to postpone, or maybe even replace extensive surgeries such as total knee arthroplasty. At the moment, biological treatments such as platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and autologous microfragmented adipose tissue containing stromal vascular fraction are ordinarily used. Furthermore, the latter two mentioned cell-based treatment options seem to be the only methods so far that increase the quality of cartilage in osteoarthritis patients. Yet, in the future, gene therapy could potentially become an option for orthopedic patients. In the following review, we summarized all of the latest and most important research in basic sciences, pathogenesis, and non-operative treatment.

Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal progressive disease, with the knee as the most commonly affected joint in the human body. While several new medications are still under research, many symptomatic therapy options, such as analgesics (opioid and non-opioid), nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis, and preparations for topical administration, are being used, with a diverse clinical response and inconsistent conclusions across various professional societies guidelines. The concept of pharmacogenomic-guided therapy, which lies on principles of the right medication for the right patient in the right dose at the right time, can significantly increase the patient’s response to symptom relief therapy in knee osteoarthritis. Corticosteroid intra-articular injections and hyaluronic acid injections provoke numerous discussions and disagreements among different guidelines, even though they are currently used in daily clinical practice. Biological options, such as platelet-rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cell injections, have shown good results in the treatment of osteoarthritis symptoms, greatly increasing the patient’s quality of life, especially when combined with other therapeutic options. Non-inclusion of the latter therapies in the guidelines, and their inconsistent stance on numerous therapy options, requires larger and well-designed studies to examine the true effects of these therapies and update the existing guidelines.

With the insufficient satisfaction rates and high cost of operative treatment for osteoarthritis (OA), alternatives have been sought. Furthermore, the inability of current medications to arrest disease progression has led to rapidly growing clinical research relating to mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The availability and function of MSCs vary according to tissue source. The three primary sources include the placenta, bone marrow, and adipose tissue, all of which offer excellent safety profiles. The primary mechanisms of action are trophic and immunomodulatory effects, which prevent the further degradation of joints. However, the function and degree to which benefits are observed vary significantly based on the exosomes secreted by MSCs. Paracrine and autocrine mechanisms prevent cell apoptosis and tissue fibrosis, initiate angiogenesis, and stimulate mitosis via growth factors. MSCs have even been shown to exhibit antimicrobial effects. Clinical results incorporating clinical scores and objective radiological imaging have been promising, but a lack of standardization in isolating MSCs prevents their incorporation in current guidelines.

Application of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in regenerative therapeutic procedures is becoming an increasingly important topic in medicine. Since the first isolation of dental tissue-derived MSC, there has been an intense investigation on the characteristics and potentials of these cells in regenerative dentistry. Their multidifferentiation potential, self-renewal capacity, and easy accessibility give them a key role in stem cell-based therapy. So far, several different dental stem cell types have been discovered and their potential usage is found in most of the major dental medicine branches. These cells are also researched in multiple fields of medicine for the treatment of degenerative and inflammatory diseases. In this review, we summarized dental MSC sources and analyzed their treatment modalities with particular emphasis on temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA).

Previous clinical and epidemiological studies have shown that over time antibody titers decrease, and they do not provide long-term mucosa protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, the increase in breakthrough infections that occur more frequently in the vaccinated than in the study participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently become a priority public health concern. We measured the amount of interferon-gamma (Quan-T-Cell ELISA) and the level of antibodies (Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA IgG) in the blood of the same patients simultaneously to compare cellular and humoral immunity. A total of 200 study participants (before Omicron variant appearance) were divided into four groups whose levels of cellular and humoral immunity we compared: study participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (group 1); study participants vaccinated with EMA-approved vaccines (group 2); study participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, and vaccination history (group 3); and study participants without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination (group 4). Our results showed that study participants who received one of the EMA-approved vaccines and who recovered from COVID-19 (group 3) had significantly higher levels of cellular immunity and antibody titers in comparison with groups 1 and 2. Additionally, we have noticed that the study participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the study participants vaccinated with EMA-approved vaccines had a long-lasting cellular immunity. Furthermore, antibody levels showed a negative correlation with time since the last contact with a viral antigen, while cellular immunity within 20 months showed as long-term protection. Moreover, out of 200 study participants, only 1 study participant who recovered from COVID-19 (0.5%) was re-infected, while a total of 6 study participants (3%) were infected with SARS-CoV-2 after receiving the vaccine. This study suggests that cellular immunity—unlike humoral immunity, thanks to memory T cells—represents long-term protection in individuals recovered from SARS-CoV-2 and after vaccination.