What the review covers
Mottaghi, Attaran Khorasani, Samadian, Farshbaf, Mohareri, and Ahrari at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences publish a narrative review in the International Dental Journal that surveys oral and maxillofacial organoid work from 2020 to 2026 (Mottaghi et al. 2026, Methods). The paper is a synthesis, not a new experiment. It evaluates organoid types by cell source, construction strategy, and translational readiness, with tooth-germ, salivary gland, taste bud, lingual epithelial, oral cancer, and maxillofacial cartilage organoids as the main categories.
For the third-teeth field, the tooth-germ section is the most relevant. It touches the bioengineered tooth germ (/programs/bioengineered-tooth-germ/), dental epithelial organoid (/programs/epithelial-organoids/), and tooth root organoid (/programs/root-organoids/) programs. The authors do not present new primary data; every claim is a summary of cited studies.
Tooth-germ organoids: where they stand
The review states that tooth organoids are generated through epithelial-mesenchymal interactions supported by collagen-based scaffolds and growth factor supplementation, which promote tooth-like structure formation (Mottaghi et al. 2026, citing Wu et al. 2024 and Hu et al. 2022). The resulting tooth-germ organoids have shown regenerative potential after transplantation into alveolar sockets in experimental models (same section, citing Hu et al. 2022 and Zhang et al. 2024). The authors single out tooth-germ organoids as “one of the most advanced systems for recapitulating epithelial-mesenchymal interactions and achieving whole-organ formation” (Mottaghi et al. 2026, Discussion).
Scaffold engineering is central to the cited work. The review lists electrospun poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) hydrogels, human umbilical vein endothelial cell-based gelatin methacrylate hydrogels, and gelatin methacrylate microparticles as scaffold approaches used to enhance tooth-germ organoid formation (Mottaghi et al. 2026, citing Smith and Yelick 2019). Growth-factor-functionalized polycaprolactone membranes are also described as supporting organogenesis and vascularization (same section, citing Eap et al. 2014).
Cell-sourcing constraints and alternative routes
A key limitation the review highlights is the restricted availability of autologous tooth germs, which primarily come from third molars. The authors note that this sourcing pattern limits generation of anterior teeth because of genetic lineage differences (Mottaghi et al. 2026, Tooth-germ organoids). That observation matters for the bioengineered tooth germ program: even if a tooth-germ organoid can form a tooth-like structure, the starting material may not generalize across tooth positions.
To address sourcing, the review cites work in which mouse dental mesenchymal cells were cocultured with pluripotent stem cells to form tooth-like structures, then implanted into alveolar sockets or cultured with electrospun polycaprolactone membranes (Mottaghi et al. 2026, citing Kim et al. 2019). The implication is that pluripotent stem cells are being explored as an alternative to autologous germ tissue, but the review does not claim clinical translation.
The paper also ties into the component programs. It cites Hemeryck et al. 2022 for human tooth epithelial organoids with stemness and ameloblast differentiation potential (epithelial-organoids program) and Calabrese et al. 2024 for self-assembled tooth root organoids from postnatal human dental stem cells that form bilayer structures with a tubular dentin-like core (root-organoids program).
Translation barriers
The review lists the same barriers that appear across the field: limited vascularization, lack of immune system integration, structural variability, scalability, and standardization (Mottaghi et al. 2026, Results and Discussion). It notes that automated magnetic 3D levitation systems have been reported to reach outputs of up to 2000 organoids per hour (same section, citing Baillargeon et al. 2019), and that organoid-based screening costs roughly 5% of equivalent animal studies (same section, citing Schaaffers et al. 2025). Those figures describe manufacturing and screening economics, not clinical efficacy.
In the authors’ comparative ranking, oral cancer and salivary gland organoids currently show the most promising translational potential because of functional validation and scalability. Tooth-germ organoids are ranked advanced for whole-organ recapitulation but are constrained by the specialized cell sources and complex developmental protocols noted above (Mottaghi et al. 2026, Discussion).
Where this leaves the record
This review does not change any program tier. It confirms that tooth-germ organoids remain the most structurally ambitious organoid approach to whole-tooth regeneration while underscoring that the leap from experimental model to clinically usable tooth replacement still depends on solving cell sourcing, vascularization, and standardization. The cited primary studies are animal or in vitro work; no human tooth induction is reported.
Source: Mottaghi et al., “Recent Bioengineering Strategies and Clinical Applications in Dentistry of Oral and Maxillofacial Organoids,” International Dental Journal, 2026;76(5):109777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2026.109777 (open access via PMC13453469). Method: /method/.