ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Regeneration of the Pulp Tissue: Cell Homing versus Cell Transplantation Approach: A Systematic Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulp-Dentin Regeneration via Cell Homing: Current Evidence and Perspectives on Cell-Free Regenerative Endodontic Therapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Stem Cells: Present Understanding and Prospects for Regenerative Dentistry.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Advances in Regenerative Dentistry Approaches: An Update.International dental journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main objective of this systematic review was to compare the apical healing, root maturation and histological characteristics of teeth treated with cell-based versus cell-free techniques.
methodsThe methodology of this review was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search strategy was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE and the Web of Science databases. The last search was done on 1 August 2021. Articles written in languages other than English were excluded. Two researchers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. As no randomized clinical trials were available, animal studies were included.
resultsIn total, 26 studies were included in the systematic review: 22 articles only researched the cell-free technique, 3 articles compared the cell-based to the cell-free technique, and 1 article compared the cell-based technique to apexification. In terms of apical healing, qualitative analysis of the data suggested that there seems to be no significant difference between cell-free and cell-based techniques. The results regarding tooth maturation are contradictory. The main difference between the cell-free and the cell-based techniques seems to be the histology of the treated tooth. The cell-free technique seems to result in cementum-like, bone-like or periodontal ligament-like tissue. One study, on the other hand, found that the cell-based technique resulted in regeneration of the whole pulp with an odontoblast layer, connective tissue, blood vessels and neuronal tissue.
conclusionsCurrently, the number of randomized clinical trials on this topic are very scarce. This is probably due to the limited infrastructure and lack of resources to apply the cell-based technique. Even though both techniques seem to be promising for clinical application, long-term data need to be provided regarding the healing and reparative patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.