Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40143563›Full record

SynthesisEuropean endodontic journal2025

Clinical Outcomes of Biomaterial Scaffolds in Regenerative Endodontic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Hossein Shahoon, Anahita Dehghani Soltani, Hormoz Dehghani Soltani, Zahra Salmani, Berahman Sabzevari, Seyed Masoud Sajedi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European endodontic journal, 2025. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Hossein ShahoonDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
Anahita Dehghani SoltaniDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 3Periodontist, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran.
Hormoz Dehghani SoltaniPeriodontist, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra SalmaniDepartment of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
Berahman SabzevariOrthodontist, Private Practice, Mashhad, Iran.
Seyed Masoud SajediDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood clot, platelet-rich fibrin, and plasma-rich plasma are the three most commonly used scaffolds in regenerative endodontic therapy. The current study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of plasma-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) scaffolds and blood clot (BC) in regenerative endodontic therapy. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, international databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched between January 2013 and November 2023 using keywords relevant to the study objectives. Randomized controlled trials published in English that investigated the effects of BC, PRF, and PRP interventions compared to each other on permanent teeth with a six-month follow-up period were included in the study. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized trials. Data were analyzed using STATA/MP software, employing odds ratios with fixed and random effects models in the meta-analysis. Fourteen randomized clinical trials involving 430 participants were reviewed. The present study did not reveal any statistically significant differences between BC and PRP regarding apical radiolucency healing (OR: -1.30, 95% CI; -2.68, 0.08; p=0.07, I2=0%, p=0.91) and apical closure (OR: -0.29, 95% CI; -1.07, 0.49; p=0.47, I2=32.63%, p=0.20). However, root-length increase in BC was greater compared to PRP (OR: 3.18, 95% CI; 2.78, 3.57; p<0.01) and PRF (OR: 1.75, 95% CI; 1.38, 2.13; p<0.01). The risk of bias was low for all studies, based on the Cochrane tool. BC is the preferred primary scaffold in regenerative endodontic therapy, while PRP and PRF are recommended for cases of severe canal bleeding. (EEJ-2024-05-079).

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsPlatelet-Rich PlasmaRegenerative EndodonticsTissue ScaffoldsHumansPlatelet-Rich FibrinRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID40143563
PMCPMC11971694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.