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

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q4 CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING
Mohammadreza Vatankhah, Shaghayegh Najary, Omid Dianat
{"title":"Clinical, Radiographic, and Histologic Outcomes of Regenerative Endodontic Treatment in Human Immature Teeth Using Different Biological Scaffolds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Mohammadreza Vatankhah, Shaghayegh Najary, Omid Dianat","doi":"10.2174/1574888X17666220903141155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically and quantitatively evaluate clinical, radiographic, and histologic outcomes of RET studies using different biological scaffolds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10979,"journal":{"name":"Current stem cell research & therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current stem cell research & therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574888X17666220903141155","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

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.

使用不同生物支架对人类未成熟牙进行再生牙髓治疗的临床、放射学和组织学结果:系统综述与元分析》。
背景:血凝块(BC)、富血小板血浆(PRP)、富血小板纤维蛋白(PRF)和血小板颗粒(PP)等生物支架被用于牙髓再生治疗(RET):系统并定量评估使用不同生物支架的 RET 研究的临床、放射学和组织学结果:方法:对 MEDLINE、Scopus、Cochrane library 和 Embase 进行检索,以确定采用任何类型生物支架对未成熟非活体牙齿进行 RET 治疗的研究。提取了临床、放射学和组织学结果。采用 Cochrane 协作偏倚风险工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行质量评估。随机和固定模型荟萃分析的置信区间为95%:在主要检索到的 1895 项研究中,有 32 项研究被纳入定性分析。只有一项研究存在高偏倚风险,71.8%的研究质量较高。所有研究均未报告任何组织学结果。30 项研究被纳入荟萃分析。使用 BC、PRP 或 PRF 的 RET 临床成功率大于 99%。此外,分别有 32%、23% 和 27% 的 BC、PRP 和 PRF 病例恢复了活力。在 BC、PRP 和 PRF 病例中,根尖周愈合率分别为 67%、75% 和 100%。BC、PRP 和 PRF 在临床成功率或任何影像学结果方面均无统计学差异:结论:BC、PRP 和 PRF 在临床和影像学结果方面没有明显差异。结论:BC、PRP 和 PRF 在临床和影像学结果方面无明显差异。当根管出血诱导困难或危险时,可采用 PRP 和 PRF 代替。
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
Current stem cell research & therapy
Current stem cell research & therapy CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING-CELL BIOLOGY
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
197
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy publishes high quality frontier reviews, drug clinical trial studies and guest edited issues on all aspects of basic research on stem cells and their uses in clinical therapy. The journal is essential reading for all researchers and clinicians involved in stem cells research.
×
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