ArticleCureus2024
Retreatment of Failed Regenerative Endodontic Therapy: Outcome and Treatment Considerations.
Article 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.
- Efficacy of concentrated growth factor compared with other types of regenerative endodontic procedures: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Regenerative endodontics: current concepts, clinical challenges, and emerging therapies.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
- Diode Laser-Guided Protocol for Endo-Perio Lesions: Toward a Multi-Stage Therapeutic Strategy-A Case Series and Brief Literature Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin Plus Sealed Exclusively with Glass Ionomer Cement: Setting a New Standard for Healing, Aesthetics and Predictive Modelling in Regenerative Endodontics.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Regenerative endodontic therapy (RET) has been suggested for treating immature necrotic teeth, and failures after RET may be observed during follow-up examinations, even two years after the initial treatment. The study aimed to examine the outcomes of RET and suggest a decision-making guide for the retreatment of failed cases. Methods Around 414 endodontically treated immature teeth from patients aged six and 17 were screened to identify eight patients who presented with a failed RET. Data, including patients' ages, sex, medical, and dental history, were collected. Results The timing of failure varied significantly. Only one tooth showed failure at the three-month initial follow-up, while the remaining five teeth exhibited failures between two and seven years post-RET completion. Notably, in most instances, failure occurred after the periapical lesion had healed and root development had continued. Six teeth underwent retreatment using various approaches: repeated RET (two teeth), conventional root canal retreatment with or without an apical plug (two teeth), and surgical retreatment (two teeth). All retreatment interventions resulted in favorable outcomes. Conclusion Despite initial RET failure, the subsequent process of maturogenesis that followed the primary treatment led to an improved crown-to-root ratio. This resulted in a better outcome for the secondary treatment and increased patient cooperation during subsequent treatments. The study presents guidelines to aid in treatment decision-making for similar cases.
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.