Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

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

Li XL., Fan W., Fan B.

Narrative Review, published in Bioact Mater (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Bioact Mater (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38745589
PMCID
PMC11090883
DOI
10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.04.031
Citations
40

Abstract (original English)

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.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.