Skip to main content

Table 5 Clinical and radiographic outcomes of test and control groups of studies included in the systematic evaluation but not in the meta-analysis

From: Are platelet concentrate scaffolds superior to traditional blood clot scaffolds in regeneration therapy of necrotic immature permanent teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author (year)

No. of teeth (group)

Teeth dropout (n)

Follow-up (month)

Clinical success (n)

Response to cold and electric pulp test (n)

Radiographic assessment and standardization

Results

Ragab et al. (2019)[35]

BC (11)

0

12

NR

NR

2D radiographs

Both groups showed radiographic evidence of periapical healing and calcific bridges either cervical and /or apical

 

BC + PRF (11)

0

   

Image J software

Treatment outcomes did not differ significantly between BC and PRF scaffold

ElSheshtawy et al. (2020)[36]

PRP (14)

1

18

No (12)

Positive (0), Negative (13)

2D radiographs

Changes in RL*, RDT**, AFW***, RRA^ and PAD^^ over time significant in both groups

 

BC (17)

0

 

No (16)

Positive (0), Negative (17)

CBCT

No difference between the PRP and BC groups, using both radiographic and CBCT methods

      

Image J

 

Rizk et al. (2020)[40]

PRP (13)

0

12

No (13)

Positive (0), Negative (13)

2D radiographs

Compared with BC, PRP-treated teeth showed statistically significant increases in radiographic root length, width, and periapical bone density, and a decrease in apical diameter

 

BC + collagen (13)

0

 

No (13)

Positive (0), Negative (13)

Image J software

 

Ramachandran et al. (2020)[37]

BC + PRP(20)

16

06-Dec

No (10)

Positive (0), Negative (10)

2D radiographs

No difference in the percentage changes in RRA^ between the BC and BC + PRP groups

 

BC (20)

  

No (14)

Positive (0), Negative (14)

Image J software

 

Meschi et al. (2021)[43]

BC (18)

4

36

No (14)

Positive (4), Negative (10)

2D radiographs

Volume root hard tissue thickness and apical area significantly better in the BC than in the BC + L-PRF group

 

BC + LPRF (11)

2

 

No (9)

Positive (5), Negative (4)

CBCT

No significant differences in root length and maximum root hard tissue thickness between the BC and LPRF groups

      

Image J software

 

Cheng et al. (2022)[42]

BC (32)

0

Jun-69

50 together#

NR

2D radiographs

Scaffold was a significant predictor of success; BC had a significantly reduced risk for failure than CGF, the induced bleeding technique appeared more appropriate for the management of traumatized teeth with REPs

 

CGF (30)

0

   

Image J software

 
  1. #In the article, the author did not mention the number of successful people in BC and CGF groups, but only provided the total number of successful peopleï¼›*: RL: root length; **:RDT: root dentinal thickness; ***: AFW: pical foramen width; ^: RRA: radiographic root area; ^^: periapical area diameter