An Update Regarding the Use of Contemporary Dental Materials in Periodontal Regeneration
Virvescu DI., Nicolaiciuc OS., Rotundu G., Bida FC., Butnaru OM., Surlari Z.
Narrative Review, published in Materials (Basel) (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Materials (Basel) (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41010122
- PMCID
- PMC12472071
- DOI
- 10.3390/ma18184278
- Citations
- 2
Abstract (original English)
Background Periodontal regeneration has become a focal point in modern dental therapy, aiming to restore the form and function of lost periodontal structures. A literature search was conducted on the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, focusing on studies published between 2000 and 2025 that addressed the clinical use of dental biomaterials in periodontal regeneration. Emphasis was placed on the use of bone grafts, guided tissue regeneration (GTR) membranes, enamel matrix derivatives, scaffolds, growth factors, and stem cell-based technologies. The review also outlines the limitations of current strategies, including unpredictable clinical responses, the rapid degradation of bioactive components, and variability in healing. Emerging directions, such as nanotechnology, gene-activated matrices, and 3D-printed scaffolds, are highlighted for their potential to improve predictability and personalization in periodontal therapy. This synthesis underscores both the progress and ongoing challenges in the field, emphasizing the need for continued research into material innovation and patient-specific solutions.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.