Saeed Reza Motamedian

Dr. Saeed Reza Motamedian


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
23 October 2015 in Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MJMaissa Jafari
Maissa Jafari
ZPZahrasadat Paknejad
Zahrasadat Paknejad
MRMaryam Rezai Rad
Maryam Rezai Rad
SMSaeed Reza Motamedian
Saeed Reza Motamedian
MEMohammad Jafar Eghbal
Mohammad Jafar Eghbal
AKArash Khojasteh
Arash Khojasteh

1 August 2021 in American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HMHossein Mohammad-Rahimi
Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi
MNMohadeseh Nadimi
Mohadeseh Nadimi
MRMohammad Hossein Rohban
Mohammad Hossein Rohban
Erfan ShamsoddinErfan Shamsoddin
Erfan Shamsoddin
VLVictor Y. Lee
Victor Y. Lee
SMSaeed Reza Motamedian
Saeed Reza Motamedian

1 January 2015 in World Journal of Stem Cells
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SMSaeed Reza Motamedian
Saeed Reza Motamedian
Sepanta HosseinpourSepanta Hosseinpour
Sepanta Hosseinpour
MAMitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie
Mitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie
AKArash Khojasteh
Arash Khojasteh
To improve osteogenic differentiation and attachment of cells. An electronic search was conducted in PubMed from January 2004 to December 2013. Studies which performed smart modifications on conventional bone scaffold materials were included. Scaffolds with controlled release or encapsulation of bioactive molecules were not included. Experiments which did not investigate response of cells toward the scaffold (cell attachment, proliferation or osteoblastic differentiation) were excluded. Among 1458 studies, 38 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main scaffold varied extensively among the included studies. Smart modifications included addition of growth factors (group I-11 studies), extracellular matrix-like molecules (group II-13 studies) and nanoparticles (nano-HA) (group III-17 studies). In all groups, surface coating was the most commonly applied approach for smart modification of scaffolds. In group I, bone morphogenetic proteins were mainly used as growth factor stabilized on polycaprolactone (PCL). In group II, collagen 1 in combination with PCL, hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphate were the most frequent scaffolds used. In the third group, nano-HA with PCL and chitosan were used the most. As variable methods were used, a thorough and comprehensible compare between the results and approaches was unattainable. Regarding the variability in methodology of these in vitro studies it was demonstrated that smart modification of scaffolds can improve tissue properties.

20 July 2022 in Journal of Periodontal Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HMHossein Mohammad-Rahimi
Hossein Mohammad-Rahimi
SMSaeed Reza Motamedian
Saeed Reza Motamedian
ZPZeynab Pirayesh
Zeynab Pirayesh
AHAnahita Haiat
Anahita Haiat
SZSamira Zahedrozegar
Samira Zahedrozegar
Falk SchwendickeFalk Schwendicke
Falk Schwendicke

1 January 2017 in Annals of Maxillofacial Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AKArash Khojasteh
Arash Khojasteh
LKLida Kheiri
Lida Kheiri
SMSaeed Reza Motamedian
Saeed Reza Motamedian
VKVahid Khoshkam
Vahid Khoshkam
Background: Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is the most common technique for localized bone augmentation. Purpose: The purpose of this review was to categorize and assess various GBR approaches for the reconstruction of human alveolar bone defects. Materials and Methods: Electronic search of four databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane and hand searching were performed to identify human trials attempting GBR for the reconstruction of alveolar bony defects for at least 10 patients from January 2000 to August 2015. To meet the inclusion criteria, studies had to report preoperative defect dimensions in addition to outcomes of bone formation and/or resorption. Results: Twenty-five human clinical trials were included of which 17 used conventional technique that is the use of space maintaining membrane with bone grafting particles (GBR I). Application of block bone graft with overlying membrane and particulate fillers was reported in seven studies (GBR II), and utilizing cortical bone block tented over a defect preserving particulate fillers was reported by one study (GBR III). A wide range of initial defects' sizes and treatment results were reported. Conclusions: This review introduces a therapeutically oriented classification system of GBR for treating alveolar bone defects. High heterogeneity among studies hindered drawing definite conclusions in regard to superiority of one to the other GBR technique.

13 February 2017 in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Sepanta HosseinpourSepanta Hosseinpour
Sepanta Hosseinpour
MAMitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie
Mitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie
MRMaryam Rezai Rad
Maryam Rezai Rad
MBMohammad Taghi Baghani
Mohammad Taghi Baghani
SMSaeed Reza Motamedian
Saeed Reza Motamedian
AKArash Khojasteh
Arash Khojasteh