Comparative Analysis of Autologous Scaffold Formation Protocols in Regenerative Endodontic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.027 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".