ReviewCureus2025
Comparison of Revascularization and Apexification Using Mineral Trioxide Aggregate in Young Human Immature Nonvital Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Regenerative endodontics: current concepts, clinical challenges, and emerging therapies.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
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
The management of immature nonvital permanent teeth in young patients remains a clinical challenge due to open apices and incomplete root development. Revascularization (RET) and apexification using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) are the two most widely used treatment modalities, but their comparative effectiveness remains debated. The present systematic review and meta-analysis compared RET and MTA apexification for treating immature nonvital teeth in patients aged 6-18 years. A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and other dental databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eight studies published between 2016 and 2023, including three randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies, met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes assessed included clinical success and failure rates, and radiographic changes in root length, root width, and apical diameter. The pooled analysis included 627 teeth. RET showed a higher but statistically nonsignificant clinical success rate (risk ratio, RR = 1.12; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.99-1.27) and a lower failure rate with apexification (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.28-1.44). RET resulted in significantly greater increases in root length (SMD = 0.31), root width (SMD = 0.61), and apical diameter reduction (SMD = 0.53). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was detected. Both RET and MTA apexification are effective in achieving periapical healing in immature nonvital teeth. However, RET offers superior regenerative outcomes in root development. Despite a higher risk of discoloration, RET may be the preferred option when proper case selection and aseptic protocols are ensured.
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.