Treatment outcomes of regenerative endodontic therapy in immature permanent teeth with pulpal necrosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess which treatment modality regarding scaffold selection for immature permanent teeth with pulpal necrosis will be the most successful for regenerative endodontic treatment (RET).

METHODOLOGY

PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase, and additional records until August 2022 were searched providing a total of 3021 articles, and nine of these articles were included for quantitative synthesis. The reviewers selected eligible randomized controlled trials and extracted pertinent data. Network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate treatment effects for primary outcomes (clinical and radiographic healing) and secondary outcomes (apical closure, root length and root wall thickness increase) following RET [mean difference (MD); 95% credible interval (CrI) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA)]. The quality of the included studies was appraised by the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Six interventions from nine included studies were identified: blood clot scaffold (BC), blood clot scaffold with basic fibroblast growth factor, blood clot scaffold with collagen, platelet pellet, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). The PRP scaffold showed the greatest increase in root lengthening at 6-12 months (MD = 4.2; 95% CrI, 1.2 to 6.8; SUCRA = 89.0%, very low confidence). PRP or PRF achieved the highest level of success for primary and secondary outcomes at 1-6 and 6-12 months. Blood clot scaffold (with collagen or combined with basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF)) achieved the highest level of success for secondary outcomes beyond 12 months follow-up. A very low to low quality of evidence suggests that both PRP and PRF exhibit the greatest success evaluating primary and secondary outcomes within 12 months postoperatively compared to the traditional blood clot scaffold protocol.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence suggests both PRP and PRF exhibit success in the short-term, not long-term. The value of this information stems in its recommendation for future randomized trials prioritizing both of these materials in their protocol.