Clinical Outcomes of Biomaterial Scaffolds in Regenerative Endodontic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Hossein Shahoon, Anahita Dehghani Soltani, Hormoz Dehghani Soltani, Zahra Salmani, Berahman Sabzevari, Seyed Masoud Sajedi
{"title":"Clinical Outcomes of Biomaterial Scaffolds in Regenerative Endodontic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Hossein Shahoon, Anahita Dehghani Soltani, Hormoz Dehghani Soltani, Zahra Salmani, Berahman Sabzevari, Seyed Masoud Sajedi","doi":"10.14744/eej.2024.30922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Blood clot, platelet-rich fibrin, and plasma-rich plasma are the three most commonly used scaffolds in regenerative endodontic therapy. The current study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of plasma-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) scaffolds and blood clot (BC) in regenerative endodontic therapy. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, international databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched between January 2013 and November 2023 using keywords relevant to the study objectives. Randomized controlled trials published in English that investigated the effects of BC, PRF, and PRP interventions compared to each other on permanent teeth with a six-month follow-up period were included in the study. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized trials. Data were analyzed using STATA/MP software, employing odds ratios with fixed and random effects models in the meta-analysis. Fourteen randomized clinical trials involving 430 participants were reviewed. The present study did not reveal any statistically significant differences between BC and PRP regarding apical radiolucency healing (OR: -1.30, 95% CI; -2.68, 0.08; p=0.07, I2=0%, p=0.91) and apical closure (OR: -0.29, 95% CI; -1.07, 0.49; p=0.47, I2=32.63%, p=0.20). However, root-length increase in BC was greater compared to PRP (OR: 3.18, 95% CI; 2.78, 3.57; p<0.01) and PRF (OR: 1.75, 95% CI; 1.38, 2.13; p<0.01). The risk of bias was low for all studies, based on the Cochrane tool. BC is the preferred primary scaffold in regenerative endodontic therapy, while PRP and PRF are recommended for cases of severe canal bleeding. (EEJ-2024-05-079).</p>","PeriodicalId":11860,"journal":{"name":"European Endodontic Journal","volume":"10 2","pages":"83-93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11971694/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Endodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/eej.2024.30922","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Blood clot, platelet-rich fibrin, and plasma-rich plasma are the three most commonly used scaffolds in regenerative endodontic therapy. The current study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of plasma-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) scaffolds and blood clot (BC) in regenerative endodontic therapy. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, international databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched between January 2013 and November 2023 using keywords relevant to the study objectives. Randomized controlled trials published in English that investigated the effects of BC, PRF, and PRP interventions compared to each other on permanent teeth with a six-month follow-up period were included in the study. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized trials. Data were analyzed using STATA/MP software, employing odds ratios with fixed and random effects models in the meta-analysis. Fourteen randomized clinical trials involving 430 participants were reviewed. The present study did not reveal any statistically significant differences between BC and PRP regarding apical radiolucency healing (OR: -1.30, 95% CI; -2.68, 0.08; p=0.07, I2=0%, p=0.91) and apical closure (OR: -0.29, 95% CI; -1.07, 0.49; p=0.47, I2=32.63%, p=0.20). However, root-length increase in BC was greater compared to PRP (OR: 3.18, 95% CI; 2.78, 3.57; p<0.01) and PRF (OR: 1.75, 95% CI; 1.38, 2.13; p<0.01). The risk of bias was low for all studies, based on the Cochrane tool. BC is the preferred primary scaffold in regenerative endodontic therapy, while PRP and PRF are recommended for cases of severe canal bleeding. (EEJ-2024-05-079).

生物材料支架在再生牙髓治疗中的临床效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
血凝块、富血小板纤维蛋白和富血浆是再生牙髓治疗中最常用的三种支架。本研究旨在评估富血浆(PRP)和富血小板纤维蛋白(PRF)支架和血凝块(BC)在再生牙髓治疗中的临床效果。本系统综述和荟萃分析在2013年1月至2023年11月期间使用与研究目标相关的关键词检索了MEDLINE (PubMed和Ovid)、Web of Science和Scopus等国际数据库。该研究包括用英语发表的随机对照试验,研究了BC、PRF和PRP干预措施对恒牙的影响,并进行了6个月的随访。使用Cochrane随机试验工具评估偏倚风险。数据分析采用STATA/MP软件,meta分析采用固定效应和随机效应模型的比值比。本研究回顾了涉及430名受试者的14项随机临床试验。本研究未发现BC和PRP在根尖放射愈合方面有统计学上的显著差异(OR: -1.30, 95% CI;-2.68、0.08;p=0.07, I2=0%, p=0.91)和根尖闭合(OR: -0.29, 95% CI;-1.07、0.49;p=0.47, I2=32.63%, p=0.20)。然而,与PRP相比,BC的根长增加更大(OR: 3.18, 95% CI;2.78、3.57;p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Endodontic Journal
European Endodontic Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信