Evidence mapPaperPMID 38745589Full record

ReviewBioactive materials2024

Dental pulp regeneration strategies: A review of status quo and recent advances.

Xin-Lu Li, Wei Fan, Bing Fan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioactive materials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Identification of GLDNInternational journal of oral science · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Xin-Lu LiThe State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, 237 Luoyu Road, 430079, Wuhan, China.
Wei FanThe State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, 237 Luoyu Road, 430079, Wuhan, China.
Bing FanThe State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, 237 Luoyu Road, 430079, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microorganisms, physical factors such as temperature or mechanical injury, and chemical factors such as free monomers from composite resin are the main causes of dental pulp diseases. Current clinical treatment methods for pulp diseases include the root canal therapy, vital pulp therapy and regenerative endodontic therapy. Regenerative endodontic therapy serves the purpose of inducing the regeneration of new functional pulp tissues through autologous revascularization or pulp tissue engineering. This article first discusses the current clinical methods and reviews strategies as well as the research outcomes regarding the pulp regeneration. Then the in vivo models, the prospects and challenges for regenerative endodontic therapy were further discussed.

Indexed as

Cell-homingGrowth factorPulp regenerationRevascularizationScaffold

Identifiers

PMID38745589
PMCPMC11090883

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.