Table 1 Data extracted from the included studies
SN | Author/year/ country | Age group | AEtiology of pulp necrosis | Sample size recruited | Sample for final follow-up analysis | Follow-up protocol | Clinical success(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Elsheshtawy et al./2020/ India | Average age 12.66±4.47 y | 29 trauma 1 dysplasia (dens invagination)[ in PRP group] 1 unknown a | 26 subjects 31 teeth BC-17 vs PRP-14 | 31 teeth BC-17 vs PRP-14 | 3, 6, 9, 12 mo | BC-88.2% PRP-85.7% |
2 | Ragab et al./2019/ Egypt | 7-12 y | Trauma | 22 subjects 22 teeth BC-11 vs BC+PRF-11 | 22 teeth BC-11 vs BC+PRF-11 | 6, 12 mo | BC-100% BC+PRF-100% |
3 | Rizk et al./2019/ Egypt | 8-14 y | Trauma | 15 subjects 30 teeth PRP-15 vs BC-15 | 26 teeth PRP-13 vs BC-13 | 3, 6, 9, 12 mo | PRP-100% BC-100% |
4 | Ulusoy et al./2019/ Turkey | 8-11 y | Trauma | 77 subjects 88 teeth PRP-22 vs PRF-22 vs PP-22 vs BC-22 | 73 teeth PRP-18 vs PRF-17 vs PP-17 vs BC-21 | 3, 6, 9, 12mo, thereafter annually (average 28.25±1.20 mo) | PRP-100% PRF-94.2% PP-100% BC-95.3% |
5 | Shivashankar Et al./2017/ India | 6-28 y | Trauma and/ or caries | 60 subjects 60 teeth PRF-20 vs BC-20 vs PRP-20 | 54 teeth PRF-20 vs BC-15 vs PRP-19 | 3, 6, 9, 12 mo | PRF-90% BC-100% PRP-100% |
6 | Rizk et al./2020/ Egypt | 8-14 y | Trauma | 13 subjects 26 teeth PRF-13 vs BC-13 | 24 teeth PRF-12 vs BC-12 | 3, 6, 9, 12 mo | PRF-100% BC-100% |
7 | Alagl et al./2017/ Arabia | 8-11 y | 24 trauma 6 caries | 16 subjects 32 teeth BC-16 vs PRP-16 | 30 teeth BC-15 vs PRP-15 | 3, 6, 9, 12 mo | BC-100% PRP-100% |
8 | Bezgin et al./2015/ Turkey | 7-13 y | 14 trauma 6 caries | 11 subjects 22 teeth BC-11 vs PRP-11 | 20 teeth BC-10 vs PRP-11 | 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 mo | BC-100% PRP-100% |
9 | Nagy et al./2014/ Egypt | 9-13 y | Unknown | 24 subjects 24 teeth BC-12 vs BC+bFGF-12 | 20 teeth BC-10 vs BC+bFGF-10 | 3, 6, 12, 18 mo | BC-90% BC+bFGF-80% |
10 | Jiang et al./2017/ China | Average of the control group 9.82±1.5 y Average of experimental group 10.3±1.9 y | 14 trauma 29 broken central cusp | 43 subjects 46 subjects BC-23 vs BC+Bio-Gide-23 | 43 teeth BC-22 vs BC+Bio-Gide-21 | Every 3 mo, at least 6 mo | BC-100% BC+Bio-Gide-100% |
11 | Jiang et al./2022/ China | Average of the control group 10.6 ± 1.7 y Average of experimental group 11.0 ± 1.9 y | 21 trauma 55 broken central cusp | 80 subjects 80 teeth BC-40 vs BC+Bio-Gide-40 | 76 teeth BC-38 vs BC+Bio-Gide-38 | Every 3 mo, at least 6 mo | BC-100% BC+Bio-Gide-100% |
12 | Jadhav et al./2012/ India | 15-28 y | Unknown | 20 subjects 20 teeth BC+PRP-10 vs BC-10 | 20 teeth BC+PRP-10 vs BC-10 | 6, 12 mo | BC+PRP-100% BC-100% |