SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2025
Comparative outcomes and success rates of regenerative endodontics versus traditional root canal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Review
- Review
- Article
- Regeneration of the dentin-pulp complex in vital pulp therapy: biological basis, biomaterials, and clinical translation.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures compared with conventional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with periapical lesions.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that were included in the study compared regenerative endodontic procedures with traditional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan Web software, using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with a random-effects model applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
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.