Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Platform technologies for regenerative endodontics from multifunctional biomaterials to tooth-on-a-chip strategies

Soares DG., Bordini EAF., Swanson WB., de Souza Costa CA., Bottino MC.

Narrative Review on Hip, published in Clin Oral Investig (2021) — 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
Clin Oral Investig (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34181097
PMCID
PMC8546585
DOI
10.1007/s00784-021-04013-4
Citations
30

Abstract (original English)

Objectives The aim of this review is to highlight recent progress in the field of biomaterials-mediated dental pulp tissue engineering. Specifically, we aim to underscore the critical design criteria of biomaterial platforms that are advantageous for pulp tissue engineering, discuss models for preclinical evaluation, and present new and innovative multifunctional strategies that hold promise for clinical translation. Materials and methods The current article is a comprehensive overview of recent progress over the last 5 years. In detail, we surveyed the literature in regenerative pulp biology, including novel biologic and biomaterials approaches, and those that combined multiple strategies, towards more clinically relevant models. PubMed searches were performed using the keywords: "regenerative dentistry," "dental pulp regeneration," "regenerative endodontics," and "dental pulp therapy." Results Significant contributions to the field of regenerative dentistry have been made in the last 5 years, as evidenced by a significant body of publications. We chose exemplary studies that we believe are progressive towards clinically translatable solutions. We close this review with an outlook towards the future of pulp regeneration strategies and their clinical translation. Conclusions Current clinical treatments lack functional and predictable pulp regeneration and are more focused on th

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
Dental PulpHumansBiocompatible MaterialsTissue EngineeringEndodonticsRegenerationLab-On-A-Chip DevicesRegenerative Endodontics

Browse all related research

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

Related research