Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38461281›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2024

Does the use of different scaffolds have an impact on the therapeutic efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures? A systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.

Feng Yang, Kai Sheng, Lintong Yu, Jun Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

4 authors.

Feng YangDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology; Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, 200011, China.
Kai ShengDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology; Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, 200011, China.
Lintong YuDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology; Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, 200011, China. yulintong1024@163.com.
Jun WangDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology; Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, 200011, China. wangjun202@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the regenerative endodontic procedures, scaffolds could influence the prognosis of affected teeth. Currently, there is controversy regarding the postoperative evaluation of various scaffolds for pulp regeneration. The objective of this study was to access whether other scaffolds, used alone or in combination with blood clot (BC), are more effective than BC in regenerative endodontic procedures.

methodsWe systematically search the PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Randomized controlled trials examining the use of BC and other scaffold materials in the regenerative endodontic procedures were included. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The GRADE method was used to determine the quality of the evidence.

resultsWe screened 168 RCTs related to young permanent tooth pulp necrosis through electronic and manual retrieval. A total of 28 RCTs were related to regenerative endodontic procedures. Ultimately, 12 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the relevant meta-analysis. Only 2 studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. High quality evidence indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (RR=0.99, 95% CI=0.96 to 1.03; 434 participants, 12 studies); low-quality evidence indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in the increase in root length or root canal wall thickness between the two groups. Medium quality evidence indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in pulp vitality testing between the two groups.

conclusionsFor clinical regenerative endodontic procedures, the most commonly used scaffolds include BC, PRP, and PRF. All the different scaffolds had fairly high clinical success rates, and the difference was not significant. For regenerative endodontic procedures involving young permanent teeth with pulp necrosis, clinical practitioners could choose a reasonable scaffold considering the conditions of the equipment and patients.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp NecrosisRegenerative EndodonticsDental PulpHumansRegenerationRoot Canal TherapyImmature permanent toothPulp necrosisPulp regenerationRegenerative endodontic procedures

Identifiers

PMID38461281
PMCPMC10924999

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.