Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39712709›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Recent Advances in Regenerative Endodontics: A Review of Current Techniques and Future Directions.

Firas A Alothman, Lamia S Hakami, Ali Alnasser, Faris M AlGhamdi, Abdullah A Alamri, Basel M Almutairii

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Antibiotic approaches to endodontic regeneration.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Firas A AlothmanDentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Lamia S HakamiDentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, SAU.
Ali AlnasserDentistry, Private Clinic, Khobar, SAU.
Faris M AlGhamdiDentistry, Private Clinic, Khobar, SAU.
Abdullah A AlamriDentistry, Private Clinic, Khobar, SAU.
Basel M AlmutairiiEndodontics, Private Clinic, Khobar, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regenerative endodontics is a rapidly evolving discipline focused on biologically restoring the pulp-dentin complex to revive vitality in non-vital teeth. Unlike traditional endodontic therapies that rely on inert materials to preserve structure, regenerative techniques aim to re-establish natural structure and function by harnessing advancements in tissue engineering. This narrative review examines recent progress in stem cell applications, scaffold development, signaling molecules, and clinical protocols that contribute to successful regenerative outcomes. Advances in stem cell sources, biomimetic scaffolds, and growth factor delivery systems have shown promising results, though challenges such as variability in outcomes and the need for standardized clinical protocols remain. This review also highlights future directions, including gene therapy and three-dimensional bioprinting, which hold the potential to overcome current limitations and pave the way for effective and reliable biologically restorative dental treatments.

Indexed as

3d bioprintingbiomaterialsclinical protocolsgene therapypulp-dentin complexregenerative endodonticsscaffold developmentsignaling moleculesstem cellstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID39712709
PMCPMC11662148

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.