ReviewBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Evaluating the remineralisation potential and clinical evidence of emerging biocompatible materials in restorative dentistry: a systematic review.
Review in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biocompatible materials with remineralising and regenerative properties are now being increasingly used in restorative dentistry as possible materials in place of conventional agents. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the laboratory remineralisation potential and available clinical evidence of emerging biocompatible, non-fluoridated materials used in restorative dentistry. Patient-reported outcomes were explored where reported. Materials and methods: A systematic review was performed on relevant databases as PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost and Scopus. Results: A total of 8 in vivo and 23 in vitro studies were included. Self-assembling peptide P11-4 (SAP P11-4) and chitosan-based materials demonstrated consistent remineralisation benefits, predominantly in laboratory studies, with limited supporting clinical evidence. Risk of bias was moderate for in vitro studies and low-to-some concerns for in vivo studies. Conclusion: Self-assembling peptides and chitosan-based biomaterials show promising potential, though current evidence is largely laboratory-based and requires further clinical validation. Further well-designed clinical trials are warranted.
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.