Aneta Cieśla-Niechwiadowicz
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Aneta Cieśla-Niechwiadowicz has a total of 11 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Amelie Lupp
Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Drackendorfer Straße 1, D-07747 Jena, Germany
1 shared publication - Benita Wiatrak
Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Mikulicza-Radeckiego 2, 50-345 Wroclaw, Poland
1 shared publication - Ewa Barg
Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
1 shared publication - Helena Moreira
Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
1 shared publication - Jakub Hadzik
Department of Dental Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Krakowska 26, 50-425 Wroclaw, Poland
1 shared publication - Katarzyna Gębczak
Division of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, Wroclaw Medical University, Borowska 211, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 7 March 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Pharmaceuticals
- Vol. 19 (3) , 429
From Extraction to Cryobanking: Which Critical Process Parameters Genuinely Improve DPSC Production?
Background: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) require strict control of critical process parameters (CPPs) to ensure manufacturing efficiency. The relative impact of donor systemic factors, such as vitamin D status, versus technical process parameters on dental pulp-derived stem cell (DPSC) production remains unclear. Methods: In this prospective observational study, 250 adults undergoing extraction of impacted mandibular third molars were included. Dental pulp was processed under a standardized SOP using different preparation methods and enzyme conditions. Primary endpoints were serum 25(OH)D concentration and cell yield; secondary endpoints included number of passages and cryovials. Results: Mean 25(OH)D concentration was 30.1 ± 14.5 ng/mL and was higher in supplemented individuals (38.2 ± 14.0 vs. 25.6 ± 12.7 ng/mL; p < 0.0001) but was not associated with cell yield (ρ = 0.14, p = 0.168) or passages (ρ = 0.07, p = 0.406). In contrast, process parameters showed strong effects: scissor preparation resulted in a substantially higher yield than mechanical methods (median 5.00 vs. 1.00 million cells; p = 3.6 × 10−13), and type II collagenase was independently associated with a higher yield (+2.04 million cells; p = 0.026). The number of passages was the strongest predictor of yield (β = 2.28 million per passage; p < 10−26). Post-thaw viability remained high (mean 90.1% and range 81–98%). Conclusions: Manufacturing efficiency of DPSCs is primarily determined by critical process parameters, particularly preparation method, enzyme selection, and passage control, whereas donor vitamin D status did not significantly influence outcomes under the studied SOP. These findings highlight process standardization as the key driver of reproducible ATMP manufacturing.
- 7 March 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Pharmaceuticals
- Vol. 19 (3) , 429
Open AccessFrom Extraction to Cryobanking: Which Critical Process Parameters Genuinely Improve DPSC Production?
Background: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) require strict control of critical process parameters (CPPs) to ensure manufacturing efficiency. The relative impact of donor systemic factors, such as vitamin D status, versus technical process parameters on dental pulp-derived stem cell (DPSC) production remains unclear. Methods: In this prospective observational study, 250 adults undergoing extraction of impacted mandibular third molars were included. Dental pulp was processed under a standardized SOP using different preparation methods and enzyme conditions. Primary endpoints were serum 25(OH)D concentration and cell yield; secondary endpoints included number of passages and cryovials. Results: Mean 25(OH)D concentration was 30.1 ± 14.5 ng/mL and was higher in supplemented individuals (38.2 ± 14.0 vs. 25.6 ± 12.7 ng/mL; p < 0.0001) but was not associated with cell yield (ρ = 0.14, p = 0.168) or passages (ρ = 0.07, p = 0.406). In contrast, process parameters showed strong effects: scissor preparation resulted in a substantially higher yield than mechanical methods (median 5.00 vs. 1.00 million cells; p = 3.6 × 10−13), and type II collagenase was independently associated with a higher yield (+2.04 million cells; p = 0.026). The number of passages was the strongest predictor of yield (β = 2.28 million per passage; p < 10−26). Post-thaw viability remained high (mean 90.1% and range 81–98%). Conclusions: Manufacturing efficiency of DPSCs is primarily determined by critical process parameters, particularly preparation method, enzyme selection, and passage control, whereas donor vitamin D status did not significantly influence outcomes under the studied SOP. These findings highlight process standardization as the key driver of reproducible ATMP manufacturing.