Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
The outcome of pulp revascularization of necrotic mature permanent teeth with periapical lesions using platelet-rich fibrin versus induced bleeding: a prospective preliminary randomized clinical trial.
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.
- Adult tooth regeneration: can blood beat biomaterials?Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Trial
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
Abstract
objectivesThe present study evaluated clinically and radiographically the effectiveness of Regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) using platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) versus induced bleeding (IB) in treating mature necrotic teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty patients with necrotic mature teeth with periapical lesions were randomly divided into two groups, Group 1, IB (n = 25), and Group 2, PRF (n = 25). Treated teeth were assessed clinically and radiographically at 6 and 12 months. Survival rate, success rate, and clinical outcome measures were analyzed.
resultsSurvival rate was 98% at the 12-month follow-up period, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.166). A statistically significant increase in periradicular healing was found in both groups at 6 and 12 months, compared to that at baseline (P< 0.001). A significant difference was found in final treatment success between the two groups (p = 0.0219). The IB group achieved a 100% success rate (23/23), while the PRF group showed a 75% success rate (18/24). The overall success rate was 85.4%.
conclusionsAll teeth treated with either IB or PRF survived throughout the follow-up period. The preliminary results of this study showed comparable clinical outcomes between the two treatment modalities, although teeth treated with IB showed higher overall success rate than those treated with PRF this should be interpreted within the framework of early phase clinical evidence as the study was not adequately powered to confirm superiority. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: REPs may represent a viable treatment option for mature necrotic teeth, offering a biologically based approach that aims to restore tissue function. Longer follow-up as planned in the second phase of this study, will allow for a more definitive comparison between IB and PRF approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42091722What 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.