SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Efficacy of concentrated growth factor compared with other types of regenerative endodontic procedures: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulp transplantation in necrotic mature teeth with periapical radiolucency.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Regenerative endodontics: current concepts, clinical challenges, and emerging therapies.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
- Regenerative endodontic therapy assisted by a concentrated growth factor scaffold for bilateral symmetrical dens evaginatus fractures in permanent teeth: a case report.American journal of translational research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the regenerative ability of concentrated growth factor (CGF) during endodontic treatment compared with other regenerative procedures.
methodsThe PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were systematically searched to identify studies that examined the use of regenerative endodontic therapy (RET) utilizing CGF for patients, animals, or extracted human teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI tool for clinical studies, QUIN tool for in vitro studies, and SYRCLE tool for animal studies. The study results were qualitatively synthesized.
resultsA total of 311 studies were initially retrieved from the databases. Ultimately, nine studies were included (three randomized clinical trials, two retrospective studies, three in vitro studies, and one in vivo animal study). The risk of bias was low in two studies and moderate in seven studies. Compared with other types of regenerative procedures, CGF has a similar influence on root dentinal thickness and apical foramen width. The clinical success rate was also comparable among the investigated regenerative procedures. The influence of CGF on human pulpal/apical papilla stem cells was similar to that of other types of regenerative procedures. However, the effect of CGF was enhanced when it was combined with transforming growth factor beta 1. The use of CGF in animals also exerted radiographic, histological, and immunohistochemical effects similar to those of exerted by other regenerative procedures.
conclusionsCompared with other regenerative procedures, CGF resulted in similar radiographic changes after the RET of necrotic permanent teeth. Similarly, CGF-conditioned medium enhanced stem cell viability, proliferation, and differentiation, with no apparent differences from other endodontic regenerative procedures. However, the interpretation of these findings is limited by the heterogeneity of included studies, variations in RET protocols, and the lack of long-term clinical outcome data.
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.