MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406783201 · doi:10.9734/jammr/2025/v37i15713

Comparative Analysis of Autologous Scaffold Formation Protocols in Regenerative Endodontic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4406783201 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Technology and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScaffoldRegenerative medicineMedicineMeta-analysisDentistryBiomedical engineeringBiologyPathologyStem cellCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: To evaluate the protocols of autogenous scaffold formation in regenerative endodontic therapy, with a focus on their efficacy in functional recovery, continued root development, and periapical healing in necrotic permanent teeth with incomplete root formation, while also assessing the increase in root length, root thickness, and reduction of the apical foramen. Study Design: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the performance of various protocols for autogenous scaffold formation. Place and Duration of Study: The review was conducted using the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and LILACS databases, covering articles published until June 2024. Methodology: The research question was developed using the PICOT framework. Inclusion criteria focused on randomized clinical trials with a minimum six-month follow-up, protocols employing autogenous scaffolds, and control groups with at least ten participants. Paired and independent searches with no filters applied were performed using the registered Medical Subject Headings "(Regenerative Endodontics) AND (Endodontics) AND (Calcium Hydroxide) AND (Platelet-Rich Fibrin) AND (Blood Coagulation) AND (Tooth Injuries) AND (Dental Pulp) AND (Dental Pulp Diseases)” and its related entry terms, covering articles relevant to the study's theme with no language or time restrictions. From an initial pool of 3.321 articles, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, and five were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Experimental scaffolds (e.g., Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet Rich Fibrin) showed statistically significant improvements in Root Length Increase compared to blood clots (P = 0.0006). Blood clots outperformed in Apical Foramen Reduction (P < 0.00001), while Root Thickness Increase results were equivalent across groups. High heterogeneity among studies was observed. Conclusion: Both traditional blood clots and experimental autogenous scaffolds showed efficacy in regenerative endodontics. While Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet Rich Fibrin demonstrated better outcomes in root lengthening, blood clots provided superior apical healing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.349
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it