ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2026
Dental Pulp Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review of Stem Cells, Biomaterials, and Bioactive Cues.
Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 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
Dental pulp regeneration (DPR) is an important research direction in regenerative endodontics that seeks to restore pulp vitality, sensation, immune defense, and the pulp-dentin architecture rather than merely retain a non-vital tooth. This review provides a mechanistically coupled and clinically focused synthesis of three interacting elements: stem/progenitor cells, biomaterials, and bioactive signals. Dental and non-dental cell sources are compared with emphasis on their angiogenic, neurogenic, odontogenic, and immunomodulatory characteristics and on the donor- and culture-dependent variability that affects product potency. Rather than presenting scaffolds only by material class, the review offers a structured critical correlation of stiffness, viscoelasticity, porosity, degradation, and bioactivity with cell fate, extracellular matrix organization, vascularization, and the risk of ectopic mineralization. Regulated growth-factor presentation, peptide-based signals, gene-activated constructs, extracellular vesicles, immune-instructive materials, and mechanobiological approaches are evaluated according to the highest experimental model in which they have been demonstrated. A stratified research framework is proposed to examine how age, inflammatory phenotype, systemic disease, apical anatomy, and regional heterogeneity of the pulp microenvironment may influence regenerative responses. The supporting evidence remains predominantly in vitro or preclinical. Cell-free regenerative endodontic procedures are clinically accepted for selected immature necrotic teeth with open apices, but available human histology most often demonstrates repair rather than recreation of a native pulp-dentin complex. Human cell transplantation studies remain small and early-phase, and advanced gene-, vesicle-, biofabrication-, and computational strategies have not yet demonstrated clinical efficacy. The framework is therefore presented as an evidence-graded research roadmap rather than a description of established personalized therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611418What 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.