ReviewCureus2024
Evaluation of Outcomes in Immature Teeth After Revitalization or Apexification Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effect of different materials and canal filling methods in apexification of simulated immature teeth on fracture resistance-in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Biomimetic Approach to Diode Laser Use in Endodontic Treatment of Immature Teeth: Thermal, Structural, and Biological Analysis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Management Strategies for Immature Teeth with Pulp Necrosis: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Iranian endodontic 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are two main treatment options for immature teeth with necrotic pulp and apical periodontitis. Apexification creates a mineralized tissue barrier, while revitalization aims to regenerate vital tissue in the canal space. There is no conclusive evidence to determine the most effective procedure regarding root length and dentin wall thickness. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of revitalization and apexification procedures in immature non-vital teeth in terms of root length and dentin wall thickness. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Embase databases. Articles relevant to the study topic were gathered according to the selection criteria, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The included studies had to be published in English, conducted over a six-year period, and compared the outcomes of revitalization and apexification procedures in immature non-vital teeth. Data were collected using appropriate keywords from the eligible studies. Six articles were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The eligible studies showed a low risk of bias. In all revitalization cases, the root length increased significantly (mean difference (MD) (%) = 5.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.39-9.43; p = 0.0010; MD (mm) = 2.43; 95% CI = 2.05-2.80; p < 0.00001). The dentin wall thickness was statistically significant in most cases (MD (%) = 10.94; 95% CI = 7.01-14.88; p < 0.00001), MD (mm) = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.07-0.25; p = 0.0007). The systematic review and meta-analysis showed both procedures to be credible treatment options for necrotic immature teeth. Apexification had a positive impact, to some extent, on the development of root length. Revitalization yielded a significantly greater increase in root length and root dentin wall thickness and appeared to be superior in promoting root development.
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.