SynthesisOdontology2026
Efficacy of platelet concentrates on vital pulp treatment of fully developed and immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of human clinical trials.
Synthesis in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared the efficacy of platelet concentrates with traditional bioactive capping materials on vital pulp treatment (VPT) healing outcomes in permanent human teeth. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and a registered protocol (CRD42024614771), a search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library for studies published until March 31, 2025. Controlled clinical trials evaluating VPT success rates using platelet concentrates versus bioceramics in permanent teeth, with at least 6 months' follow-up, were included. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using the MetaInsight tool to assess multiple comparisons, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools. Evidence quality was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). The search identified 1097 studies, with ten meeting the inclusion criteria, encompassing 437 patients and three treatment modalities. At 6 months, success rates for mature teeth showed no statistically significant differences: LPC (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.96-1.04) and PRF (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.96-1.12). For immature teeth, PRF demonstrated no significant effect (RR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92-1.06). At 12 months, outcomes remained non-significant for mature teeth with LPC (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.90-1.15) and PRF (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.94-1.28), and for immature teeth treated with PRF (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.94-1.06). These findings suggest that while platelet concentrates may offer comparable outcomes, bioceramics should be considered the preferred option based on probabilistic analysis.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024614771.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40991160What 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.