ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Recombinant Amelogenin as a Potential Alternative to Enamel Matrix Derivatives in Periodontal Regeneration: A Scoping Review of Its Biological Activity, Synthesis and Delivery Systems.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this review is to evaluate the existing literature on the regenerative potential of recombinant amelogenin, with a particular emphasis on the biological activity, synthesis, and delivery systems relevant to periodontal regeneration. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science to identify studies on recombinant amelogenin for periodontal regeneration. Inclusion criteria encompassed in vitro and animal model studies reporting on cellular growth, regeneration markers, tissue repair and clinical improvements. Data extraction focused on study design, protein source, delivery system, experimental model, and reported biological outcomes. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and supplemented by a narrative synthesis of the preclinical literature.
resultsThe literature search included 23 studies comprising predominantly preclinical cell culture and in vivo mouse studies. Recombinant amelogenin was evaluated across diverse experimental systems and delivery methods, most frequently by direct dissolution in culture media, with fewer studies using injectable hydrogels or scaffold‑based carriers. Although most investigations reported biological activity attributable to recombinant amelogenin, the outcome measures, experimental models, and formulation strategies varied substantially, limiting direct comparison across studies.
conclusionRecombinant amelogenin shows consistent preclinical activity supporting its biological plausibility as a regenerative agent. However, evidence remains largely preclinical and heterogeneous. Future studies should employ standardised models, optimised delivery systems, and direct comparisons with established therapies to clarify its translational potential in periodontal regeneration.
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.