Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30524931›Full record

ReviewCurrent oral health reports2018

Tooth Repair and Regeneration.

Ana Angelova Volponi, Lucia K Zaugg, Vitor Neves, Yang Liu, Paul T Sharpe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current oral health reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Mutanobactin-D, aInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Ana Angelova Volponi1Centre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, Dental Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Lucia K Zaugg1Centre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, Dental Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Vitor Neves1Centre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, Dental Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Yang Liu1Centre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, Dental Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul T Sharpe1Centre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, Dental Institute, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewCurrent dental treatments are based on conservative approaches, using inorganic materials and appliances.This report explores and discusses the newest achievements in the field of "regenerative dentistry," based on the concept of biological repair as an alternative to the current conservative approach. RECENT

findingsThe review covers and critically analyzes three main approaches of tooth repair: the re-mineralization of the enamel, the biological repair of dentin, and whole tooth engineering. SUMMARY: The development of a concept of biological repair based on the role of the Wnt signaling pathway in reparative dentin formation offers a new translational approach into development of future clinical dental treatments.In the field of bio-tooth engineering, the current focus of the researchers remains the establishment of odontogenic cell-sources that would be viable and easily accessible for future bio-tooth engineering.

Indexed as

Biological repairBio-toothDentinogenesisRegenerative dentistryReparative dentin

Identifiers

PMID30524931
PMCPMC6244610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.