Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25919657›Full record

SynthesisTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2015

Stem Cell Transplantation for Pulpal Regeneration: A Systematic Review.

Karim M Fawzy El-Sayed, Kimberley Jakusz, Arne Jochens, Christof Dörfer, Falk Schwendicke

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Regenerative Endodontic Procedures: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Nanomaterials for Tissue Engineering In Dentistry.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Karim M Fawzy El-Sayed1 Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel , Kiel, Germany .
Kimberley Jakusz3 Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin , Berlin, Germany .
Arne Jochens4 Institute for Medical Informatics and Statistics, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel , Kiel, Germany .
Christof Dörfer1 Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel , Kiel, Germany .
Falk Schwendicke3 Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin , Berlin, Germany .
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEKiel University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For treating pulpal pathological conditions, pulpal regeneration through transplanted stem/progenitor cells might be an alternative to conventional root canal treatment. A number of animal studies demonstrated beneficial effects of stem/progenitor cell transplantation for pulp-dentin complex regeneration, that is, pulpal tissue, neural, vascular, and dentinal regeneration. We systematically reviewed animal studies investigating stem/progenitor cell-mediated pulp-dentin complex regeneration. Studies quantitatively comparing pulp-dentin complex regeneration after transplantation of stem/progenitor cells versus no stem/progenitor cell transplantation controls in intraoral in vivo teeth animal models were analyzed. The following outcomes were investigated: regenerated pulp area per root canal total area, capillaries per total surface, regenerated dentinal area per total defect area, and nerves per total surface. PubMed and EMBASE were screened for studies published until July 2014. Cross-referencing and hand searching were used to identify further articles. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. To assess possible bias, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies was used. From 1364 screened articles, five studies (representing 64 animals) were included in the quantitative analysis. Risk of bias of all studies was high. Stem/progenitor cell-transplanted pulps showed significantly larger regenerated pulp area per root canal total area (SMD [95% CI]: 2.28 [0.35-4.21]) and regenerated dentin area per root canal total area (SMD: 6.91 [5.39-8.43]) compared with no stem/progenitor cell transplantation controls. Only one study reported on capillaries per or nerves per total surface and found both significantly increased in stem/progenitor cell-transplanted pulps compared with controls. Stem/progenitor cell transplantation seems to enhance pulp-dentin complex regeneration in animal models. Due to limited data quantity and quality, current evidence levels are insufficient for further conclusions.

Indexed as

RegenerationStem Cell TransplantationAnimalsDental PulpHumans

Identifiers

PMID25919657
PMCPMC4623990
OpenAlexW1950417800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.