Do alternative scaffolds used in regenerative endodontics promote better root development than that achieved with blood clots?

Araújo, Letícia de; Goulart, Taynara Santos; Gil, Ana Clara Kuerten; Schuldt, Daniela Peressoni Vieira; Coelho, Beatriz Serrato; Figueiredo, Daniela de Rossi; Garcia, Lucas da Fonseca Roberti; Almeida, Josiane de

doi:10.1590/0103-6440202204746

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Braz. Dent. J. 33 (2) • Mar-Apr 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204746 copy

Do alternative scaffolds used in regenerative endodontics promote better root development than that achieved with blood clots?

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The aim of this integrative review was to identify whether alternative scaffolds used in regenerative endodontics contribute to better root development, in relation to the increase in root length and thickness of dentin walls, compared with blood clot (BC) scaffolds. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, SciELO and Lilacs databases, using descriptors related to the topic. After applying the eligibility criteria, 11 articles were selected and analyzed according to the proposed aim. Five clinical and six in vivo studies, conducted in animals, compared different types of alternative scaffolds with BCs, with emphasis on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). All scaffolds, alternative or BC, promoted an increase in root length and dentin wall thickness, with varying percentages of increase between studies. In general, there was a significant increase in root length and dentin thickness promoted by PRF and PRP scaffolds, compared with BC. It was concluded that the majority of the scaffolds tested contributed to the increase in root length and thickness of dentin walls, with emphasis on PRF and PRP.

Key Words:
Regenerative endodontics; tissue engineering; biocompatible materials

	Selected Studies
	E1	E2	E3	E4	E5
Was the study described as randomized?	1	1	1	1	1
Was the study described as double-blind?	0	0	0	0	1
Was there a description of exclusions and losses?	1	1	1	1	1
Was the method used to generate the randomized sequence described and appropriate?	1	1	1	1	1
Was the double-blind method described and appropriate?	0	0	0	0	1
Score	3	3	3	3	5

STUDY	Selection bias			Performance bias		Detection bias		Attrition bias	Report bias	Other sources of bias
STUDY	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Torabinejad et al.	*	Y	*	Y	N	*	N	*	*	Y
Benítez et al.	Y	Y	*	Y	Y	*	Y	*	*	Y
Stambolsky et al.	Y	Y	*	Y	Y	*	Y	*	*	Y
Palma et al.	Y	Y	*	Y	Y	*	Y	Y	*	Y
Halaby et al.	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	Y
Jang et al.	Y	Y	*	Y	Y	*	Y	Y	*	Y

Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto Av. do Café, S/N, 14040-904 Ribeirão Preto SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 16) 3602-3982, Fax: (55 16) 3633-0999 - Ribeirão Preto - SP - Brazil
E-mail: bdj@forp.usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Josiane de Almeida Cava da Silveira. Address: Av. Pedra Branca, 25 - Palhoça - Santa Catarina / Brazil. CEP: 88137-270. Fone: +55 (048) 9 9976-7075. E-mail: dealmeidajosiane@hotmail.com