ReviewJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Context-dependent effectiveness of autologous platelet concentrates in regenerative endodontic procedures and periapical surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) compared with conventional approaches across regenerative endodontic contexts, including regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) in immature and mature permanent teeth and periapical surgery. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and supplementary sources was conducted from January 2000 to April 2026. Randomized and prospective clinical studies comparing APCs (platelet-rich plasma, platelet-rich fibrin, and derivatives) with conventional scaffolds or treatments were included. Outcomes assessed were clinical success, periapical healing, root development, pulp sensibility, and postoperative pain. Risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models with risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), or mean differences (MDs). Results: Thirty-nine studies were included. In immature teeth, APCs showed no significant difference compared with blood clot scaffolds in periapical healing (RD = 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.08-0.16) and demonstrated comparable root development outcomes. In mature teeth, APC-based REPs showed no significant improvement in radiographic healing (RR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.70-1.40), while pulp sensibility outcomes were highly heterogeneous and not statistically significant. In periapical surgery, APCs used as adjunctive biomaterials significantly improved radiographic healing (RR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.27-2.98) and showed a nonsignificant reduction in postoperative pain (MD = -3.96; 95% CI: -9.36-1.44). Conclusions: APCs provide clinical outcomes comparable to conventional approaches in regenerative endodontics, particularly in immature teeth. Their benefits appear context-dependent, with improved early healing in periapical surgery but no consistent advantage in pulp sensibility or long-term outcomes. APCs should be considered biologically active adjuncts rather than replacements for conventional treatment.
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.