0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Clinical, Radiographic, and Histologic Outcomes of Regenerative Endodontic Treatment in Human Immature Teeth Using Different Biological Scaffolds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      1 , 2 , 3
      Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy
      Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Biological scaffolds such as blood clot (BC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet- rich fibrin (PRF), and platelet pellet (PP) are used in regenerative endodontic treatments (RETs).

          Objective:

          To systematically and quantitatively evaluate clinical, radiographic, and histologic outcomes of RET studies using different biological scaffolds.

          Methods:

          MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane library, and Embase were searched to identify studies on RET procedures with any scaffold type performed on immature non-vital human teeth, employing any type of biological scaffold. Clinical, radiographic, and histologic outcomes were extracted. Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle–Ottawa scale were used for quality assessment. Random and fixed model meta-analysis was carried out with 95% confidence interval.

          Results:

          Thirty-two studies were included in the qualitative analysis from the primarily retrieved 1895 studies. Only one study had high risk of bias and 71.8% of the studies had high quality. None of the studies reported any histologic findings. Thirty studies were included in meta-analysis. Clinical success rate of RET using either BC, PRP, or PRF was >99%. Furthermore, 32%, 23%, and 27% of BC, PRP, and PRF cases regained vitality, respectively. Periapical healing was seen in 67%, 75%, and 100% of BC, PRP, and PRF cases, respectively. There was no statistical difference between BC, PRP, or PRF regarding clinical success or any radiographic outcomes.

          Conclusion:

          There was no significant difference between BC, PRP, and PRF in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes. When it is difficult or dangerous to induce bleeding in root canals, PRP and PRF may be employed instead.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Contributors
          (View ORCID Profile)
          (View ORCID Profile)
          (View ORCID Profile)
          Journal
          Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy
          CSCR
          Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
          1574888X
          May 2024
          May 2024
          : 19
          : 4
          : 611-627
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Iranian Center for Endodontic Research, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
          [2 ]Students\' Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
          [3 ]Division of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
          Article
          10.2174/1574888X17666220903141155
          36056831
          75be6fd3-e588-43b9-90ff-dab55b57830e
          © 2024
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article