ReviewOdontology2026
Engineered biomaterial-based scaffolds for dentin-pulp complex regeneration: applications and biological performance-a scoping review.
Review in Odontology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To map and summarize scientific evidence on engineered scaffolds for dentin-pulp complex regeneration. This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, complemented by grey literature searches. In vitro, in situ, and in vivo studies that evaluated scaffolds or other biomaterial-based strategies for guided tissue regeneration in the dentin-pulp complex were included. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and qualitative descriptive synthesis. Of the 357 records identified after duplicate removal, 44 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most were in vitro studies, followed by combined in vitro/in vivo and in vivo animal studies. The scaffolds included synthetic polymers, natural biomaterials, bioceramics, hybrid systems, and extracellular matrix-derived materials. Lyophilization and electrospinning were the most common fabrication techniques, although 3D printing, bioprinting, injectable systems, and self-assembling platforms were also explored. Overall, the studies showed favorable cytocompatibility, supporting cell adhesion, proliferation, migration, odontogenic differentiation, mineralized matrix deposition, and angiogenic potential. Bioactive functionalization further enhanced regenerative performance, while antimicrobial approaches demonstrated activity against clinically relevant endodontic pathogens and inhibition of biofilm formation. In vivo findings supported the formation of vascularized pulp-like tissue and dentin-like or mineralized structures, although the overall evidence remains predominantly preclinical. Scaffolds show potential for dentin-pulp regeneration by providing structural support and bioactive cues. Natural, synthetic, and hybrid systems consistently promote differentiation, mineral deposition, and pulp-like tissue formation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42380706What 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.