Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Pulp transplantation in necrotic mature teeth with periapical radiolucency.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
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
objectivesThis exploratory randomized clinical trial evaluated the regenerative potential of autologous dental pulp transplantation, with or without concentrated growth factor (CGF), compared with conventional root canal therapy (RCT). The aim was to assess sensibility recovery and periapical healing in necrotic mature teeth with periapical radiolucency. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-one patients were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 7): autologous pulp transplantation, pulp transplantation with CGF, and conventional RCT. Donor pulp tissues were obtained from non-carious third molars. Follow-up examinations were performed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Sensibility was assessed using electrical pulp testing, and periapical healing was evaluated by periapical radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography. Statistical analyses included non-parametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon) and categorical comparisons (chi-square/Fisher’s exact) (α = 0.05).
resultsPositive sensibility response was observed in 71.4% of teeth in the pulp transplantation group and 42.9% in the CGF group, while no sensibility recovery occurred in the RCT group. All groups showed periapical healing, with the greatest lesion reduction in the pulp transplantation group (p < 0.01). No adverse events were reported.
conclusionsAutologous dental pulp transplantation appears to be a safe and promising approach for necrotic mature teeth, whereas the addition of CGF did not provide additional clinical benefit in this cohort. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Autologous dental pulp transplantation may represent a viable regenerative alternative to conventional RCT in necrotic mature teeth, with the potential to promote periapical healing and partial sensibility recovery without additional biological adjuncts.
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.