MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413867428 · doi:10.1111/iej.70025

Pre‐Operative Factors on Prognosis of Regenerative Endodontic Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4413867428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Filipe Colombo Vitali, Alexandre Henrique dos Reis‐Prado, Pablo Silveira Santos, Ana Paula Portes Zeno, Patrícia Risso, Lucianne Cople Maia, Francine Benetti, Cleonice da Silveira Teixeira

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa CatarinaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicinePulp necrosisObservational studyDentistryMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialEndodonticsEtiologyPulp (tooth)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although regenerative endodontics has advanced in recent years, the influence of pre-operative factors on treatment outcomes remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of pre-operative factors-including age, gender, tooth type, aetiology of pulp necrosis, stage of root development, clinical signs/symptoms and periradicular status-on the treatment outcomes of regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) in immature permanent teeth. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and grey literature to identify studies investigating the effect of pre-operative factors on REP outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool for randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Meta-analyses of proportions were conducted to estimate pooled rates for the outcomes 'clinical and radiographic healing', 'root development' and 'apical closure' across different pre-operative factors. Associations between these factors and treatment outcomes were assessed through meta-analyses of effect sizes. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included, comprising 13 observational studies and seven RCTs. Most studies presented a moderate to high risk of bias. The pooled success rate for clinical and radiographic healing exceeded 81% across all pre-operative factors. Moreover, root development was achieved in 52%-95% of cases, whereas complete apical closure ranged from 32% to 91%. No significant association was found between pre-operative factors and clinical and radiographic healing. It was found that teeth with pulp necrosis due to trauma presented 3.59 times higher relative risk of root development failure compared to those with necrosis due to anatomic anomaly (RR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.21-10.67, p = 0.02). Incisors presented 1.90 times higher relative risk of root development failure (RR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.37-2.63, p < 0.01) and 1.98 times higher relative risk of incomplete apical closure (RR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.34-3.13, p = 0.02) compared to premolars. The presence of an apical lesion increased the relative risk of root development failure by 2.55 times (RR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.63-4.86, p = 0.01). The certainty of evidence was rated as very low. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative factors were not significantly associated with clinical and radiographic healing in REPs. However, trauma-related pulp necrosis, tooth type (incisors) and the presence of apical lesions were associated with an increased risk of root development failure. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to between-study heterogeneity, the moderate to high risk of bias and the very low certainty of the evidence.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Endodontic JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207