Trial reportEvidence-based dentistry2026
Adult tooth regeneration: can blood beat biomaterials?
Trial report in Evidence-based 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onAwawdeh L, Almesleh B, Hammouri H, Al-Qudah A. 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. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2026; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-026-06877-w .
designA single-centre, prospective, two-arm parallel randomised clinical trial presented as a preliminary (early-phase) investigation. CASE SELECTION: Fifty adults presenting with mature permanent teeth where the pulpal status was diagnosed as necrotic with associated periapical lesions were included. The pool of patients was allocated to one of two regenerative endodontic treatment protocols, each containing 25 patients. In one group, 25 patients underwent a procedure where a canal scaffold was generated by deliberately provoking bleeding from the periapical tissues (induced bleeding, IB). In the second group of patients, an autologous platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane was placed to serve as a biological barrier. A clinical and radiographic review was done at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months after treatment completion. DATA ANALYSIS: Pre-specified endpoints were set to determine, firstly, tooth survival and overall treatment success and secondly, periradicular healing through radiographic evaluation. Within- and between-group comparisons were made using the appropriate statistical tests and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsAt the one-year mark, 98% of teeth had survived (47/48). Interestingly, survival did not differ meaningfully between the two treatment groups (p = 0.166). Both treatment options produced healing with a statistically significant reduction in periradicular pathology compared with baseline at the six- and twelve-month reviews (p < 0.001). Also, a statistically significant impact was found on the overall success rate at the endpoint (p = 0.022). In the IB group, a 100% success rate was achieved (23/23) compared to 75% in the PRF group (18/24), with a combined overall success of 85.4%.
conclusionsWhichever treatment pathway was followed, all teeth survived the chosen regenerative endodontic procedure after 12 months. The preliminary results indicated that results and clinical outcomes were comparable. Although the IB option showed a higher overall success rate, this finding should be interpreted with caution as the results fall within the early phase clinical evidence framework. Further investigations are required to determine the superiority of one method over the other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42542468What 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.