ReviewOdontology2026
Outcome evaluation of regenerative endodontic procedures using platelet derivatives: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal models.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the outcomes of regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) performed in immature necrotic permanent teeth in animal models, comparing autologous platelet derivatives (PDs) with the traditional blood clot (BC) scaffold. Following PRISMA guidelines and a protocol registered in PROSPERO, a comprehensive electronic search was conducted of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus up to April 2025. Preclinical studies were included if they assessed REPs in immature permanent necrotic teeth with open apices and compared at least one experimental group treated with autologous platelet derivatives (PDs) to a BC control group. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias using the SYRCLE tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to combine trial results and account for expected methodological and biological heterogeneity. Histological outcomes were descriptively assessed due to substantial data heterogeneity. The search identified 836 records, of which 10 studies met the inclusion criteria (45 animals, 393 teeth). The follow-up periods varied (1, 2, 3, 6 months), and the animals were sacrificed at the end of the 3- and 6-month periods. Pooled analyses showed no statistically significant differences between PDs and BC groups across all time points for clinical and radiographical outcomes. Histologically, both scaffolds primarily promoted the formation of mineralized tissue resembling cementum or bone, whereas true pulp or dentin regeneration remained limited. In conclusion, the currently available preclinical evidence does not provide clear evidence of superiority of either platelet derivatives or blood clot scaffolds in regenerative endodontic procedures. Further standardized animal studies with longer follow-up and detailed tissue characterization are required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD420250492243, date of registration: April 2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474920What 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.