Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42856900›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2026

Decellularized dental pulp extracellular matrix for pulp-dentin regeneration: a narrative review of processing, bioactivity, delivery, preclinical evidence, and translational challenges.

Xinli Zhang, Mengjie Dong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xinli ZhangHangzhou Stomatology Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Mengjie DongHangzhou Stomatology Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regenerative endodontics is intended to bring living function back to the pulp-dentin complex. That means restoring blood supply, neural support, immune activity, and dentin formation, not simply filling the canal with repair tissue. Blood-clot-based procedures can promote healing, but the tissue that forms is often uneven and does not closely resemble normal pulp. This limitation has drawn attention to decellularized dental pulp extracellular matrix (DPECM). DPECM keeps part of the native three-dimensional framework together with collagens, glycosaminoglycans, matricellular proteins, and matrix-bound signals. The objective of this narrative review is to critically evaluate how native dental pulp-derived DPECM is prepared and delivered, what biological effects and candidate mechanisms are directly supported, and what evidence gaps limit clinical translation. A focused PubMed search from database inception to 31 July 2026 used terms for dental pulp, decellularized extracellular matrix, DPECM, and regenerative endodontics; reference-list screening supplemented the search, and 101 articles were retained for narrative synthesis. Across the available, predominantly preclinical literature, DPECM has generally been associated with dental pulp stem-cell adhesion and migration, several differentiation programs, and angiogenic, neural-marker, and immune-remodeling outcomes. Whole-pulp scaffolds preserve tissue architecture more faithfully. Solubilized hydrogels, microgels, and photocrosslinked composites are easier to place in irregular root canals, although some structural information is lost during processing. Comparative omics has started to explain why pulp-derived matrix may behave differently from other matrices. Candidate tenascin-C/Notch signaling is one example. Another recurring theme is the coupling of macrophage behavior with vascular and odontogenic repair. Recent orthotopic canine studies provide stronger preclinical evidence of pulp-like tissue with dentinogenic, vascular-marker, and neural-marker outcomes, but not restored function. Even so, most evidence still comes from cell culture, ectopic implantation, or short animal experiments. Differences in tissue source, processing, controls, and outcome definitions make effect sizes difficult to compare. The next stage of the field will require agreed quality attributes, practical potency assays, infected-root models, long-term functional outcomes, and direct comparison with current regenerative procedures. DPECM remains a predominantly preclinical strategy: no direct human clinical evaluation of a DPECM-based therapeutic product was identified, and translation will require reproducible manufacturing, disease-relevant testing, and durable functional outcomes.

Indexed as

decellularized dental pulp extracellular matrixDPECMextracellular matrix hydrogelpulp-dentin complexregenerative endodontics

Identifiers

PMID42856900
PMCPMC13650465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.