Clinical, Radiographic, and Histologic Outcomes of Regenerative Endodontic Treatment in Human Immature Teeth Using Different Biological Scaffolds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biological scaffolds such as blood clot (BC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet- rich fibrin (PRF), and platelet pellet (PP) are used in regenerative endodontic treatments (RETs). OBJECTIVE: To systematically and quantitatively evaluate clinical, radiographic, and histologic outcomes of RET studies using different biological scaffolds. METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane library, and Embase were searched to identify studies on RET procedures with any scaffold type performed on immature non-vital human teeth, employing any type of biological scaffold. Clinical, radiographic, and histologic outcomes were extracted. Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used for quality assessment. Random and fixed model meta-analysis was carried out with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included in the qualitative analysis from the primarily retrieved 1895 studies. Only one study had high risk of bias and 71.8% of the studies had high quality. None of the studies reported any histologic findings. Thirty studies were included in meta-analysis. Clinical success rate of RET using either BC, PRP, or PRF was >99%. Furthermore, 32%, 23%, and 27% of BC, PRP, and PRF cases regained vitality, respectively. Periapical healing was seen in 67%, 75%, and 100% of BC, PRP, and PRF cases, respectively. There was no statistical difference between BC, PRP, or PRF regarding clinical success or any radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between BC, PRP, and PRF in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes. When it is difficult or dangerous to induce bleeding in root canals, PRP and PRF may be employed instead.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".