ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2026
Contemporary biomimetic and bioactive materials in paediatric dentistry: a narrative review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomimetic dentistry seeks to restore the structure and function of natural tooth tissues using materials that closely approximate their biological counterparts. Despite the growing clinical adoption of materials marketed as "biomimetic" or "bioactive," a persistent terminological ambiguity between these two terms has complicated evidence synthesis and clinical decision-making, particularly in the paediatric context. This narrative review, in which no systematic risk-of-bias assessment was performed, proposes a conceptual two-tier classification framework for biomimetic dental materials, distinguishing passive biomimetics, which replicate physical tooth tissue properties without inducing a biological response, from bioactive substances, which actively promote healing or remineralisation. Passive biomimetics encompass dental ceramics and resin-based composites. Bioactive substances are further subdivided into ion-releasing materials, bioceramic-based substances, biomolecular/bioinductive systems, and smart adhesive/hybrid systems. Each category is appraised against the FDI 2022 Policy Statement criteria for bioactive restorative materials. The proposed classification has not been prospectively validated and is intended as a conceptual framework to guide clinical reasoning and future research. Evidence quality varies considerably across categories: while materials such as glass ionomer cements and mineral trioxide aggregate are supported by extensive clinical data, emerging approaches including self-assembling peptide P11-4 and bioactive adhesive systems remain primarily supported by in vitro or short-term evidence. Future research should prioritise long-term randomised controlled trials in paediatric populations to validate the clinical relevance of emerging biomimetic strategies.
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.