Regenerative endodontic therapy: From laboratory bench to clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintaining the vitality and functionality of dental pulp is paramount for tooth integrity, longevity, and homeostasis. Aiming to treat irreversible pulpitis and necrosis, there has been a paradigm shift from conventional root canal treatment towards regenerative endodontic therapy. AIM OF REVIEW: This extensive and multipart review presents crucial laboratory and practical issues related to pulp-dentin complex regeneration aimed towards advancing clinical translation of regenerative endodontic therapy and enhancing human life quality. KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW: In this multipart review paper, we first present a panorama of emerging potential tissue engineering strategies for pulp-dentin complex regeneration from cell transplantation and cell homing perspectives, emphasizing the critical regenerative components of stem cells, biomaterials, and conducive microenvironments. Then, this review provides details about current clinically practiced pulp regenerative/reparative approaches, including direct pulp capping and root revascularization, with a specific focus on the remaining hurdles and bright prospects in developing such therapies. Next, special attention was devoted to discussing the innovative biomimetic perspectives opened in establishing functional tissues by employing exosomes and cell aggregates, which will benefit the clinical translation of dental pulp engineering protocols. Finally, we summarize careful consideration that should be given to basic research and clinical applications of regenerative endodontics. In particular, this review article highlights significant challenges associated with residual infection and inflammation and identifies future insightful directions in creating antibacterial and immunomodulatory microenvironments so that clinicians and researchers can comprehensively understand crucial clinical aspects of regenerative endodontic procedures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".