Table 4.
Data extraction from included studies for qualitative analysis – clinical evaluation parameters.
| Author | Intervention | Type of Study | Comparative Group | Sample Size | Follow Up Time (in Months) | RA | Parameters to Assess Clinical Evaluation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DWT | IRL | AFW | AC | VR | PAH | BD | |||||||
| Alagl et al., 2017 [16] | REP | RCT | BC | 15 | 12 | CBCT | - | 11.80 ± 3.28 mm |
- | 53.33% | 53.33% | - | 445.44 ± 153.54 HU |
| PRP | 15 | - | 12.14 ± 3.32 mm |
- | 93.33% | 86.66% | - | 485.88 ± 154.15 HU | |||||
| Bezgin et al., 2015 [17] | REP | RCT | BC | 10 | 18 | IOPAR | - | 12.6% | - | 60% | 20% | - | - |
| PRP | 10 | - | 9.86% | - | 70% | 50% | - | - | |||||
| Elsheshtawy et al., 2020 [18] | REP | RCT | BC | 11 | 12 | CBCT | ICC = 1 | ICC = 0.998 | ICC = 1 | - | - | - | - |
| PRP | 11 | ICC = 0.997 | ICC = 0.999 | ICC = 0.998 | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Jadhav et al., 2012 [19] | REP | RCT | BC | 10 | 12 | IOPAR | S = 70% G = 30% |
S = 40% G = 60% |
- | S = 50% G = 30 E = 20% |
- | S = 30%, G = 70% | - |
| PRP | 10 | S = 20%, G = 50%, E = 30% |
S = 10% G = 50% E = 40% |
- | G = 30%, E = 70% | - | S = 10% G = 40% E = 50% |
- | |||||
| Rizk et al., 2019 [20] | REP | RCT | BC | 13 | 12 | IOPAR | - | 0.68 ± 0.44 mm | 2.2 ± 3.97 mm | - | - | - | 58.96 ± 19.95 Grey |
| PRP | 13 | - | 1.48 ± 0.37 mm | 2.49 ± 3.93 mm | - | - | - | 65.08 ± 30.043 Grey | |||||
| Ragab et al., 2019 [21] | REP | RCT | BC | 11 | 12 | IOPAR | - | 14.8% | - | 45.4% | - | 80.5% | - |
| PRF | 11 | - | 12.8% | - | 63.6% | - | 70.2% | - | |||||
| Mittal et al., 2019 [22] | REP | RCT | BC | 4 | 12 | IOPAR | 100% | 25% | - | 25% | - | 75% | - |
| PRF | 4 | 100% | 0 | - | 100% | - | 75% | - | |||||
| Shivashankar et al., 2017 [23] | REP | RCT | BC | 15 | 12 | IOPAR | 93.3% | 86.7% | - | - | 13.30% | 2.07 ± 0.594 mm | - |
| PRP | 19 | 84.2% | 73.7% | - | - | 15.8% | 1.32 ± 0.478 mm | - | |||||
| PRF | 20 | 70% | 65% | - | - | 15% | 1.85 ± 1.040 mm | - | |||||
| Hazim Rizk et al., 2020 [24] | REP | RCT | PRP | 13 | 12 | IOPAR | - | 1.48 ± 0.37 mm | 0.97 ± 0.75 mm | - | - | - | 65.08 ± 30.043 Grey |
| PRF | 12 | - | 1.24 ± 0.54 mm | 1.003 ± 0.392 mm | - | - | - | 53.44 ± 22.165 Grey | |||||
| Jiang et al., 2017 [25] | REP | RCT | Without Bio-Gide | 22 | 6 | IOPAR | 21.2 ± 19.5% | 15.4 ± 13.6% | −55 ± 34% | - | 18% | - | - |
| With Bio-Gide | 21 | 21.5 ± 22.5% | 16.4 ± 13.6% | −65 ± 34% | - | 33% | - | - | |||||
| Narang et al., 2015 [26] | REP | RCT | MTA | 5 | 18 | IOPAR | 0% | 0% | - | 0% | - | 58% | - |
| BC | 5 | 50% | 40% | - | 66.67% | - | 60% | - | |||||
| PRP | 5 | 60% | 99% | - | 40% | - | 98% | - | |||||
| PRF | 5 | 20% | 40% | - | 60% | - | 80% | - | |||||
| Meschi et al., 2021 [27] | REP | RCT | REP-LPRF | 13 | 36 | CBCT | 30% | 0% | - | - | - | 100% | - |
| REP + LPRF | 6 | 10% | 10% | - | - | - | 100% | - | |||||
| Ulusoy et al., 2019 [28] | REP | RCT | BC | 21 | Until complete healing 10–49 | IOPAR | 14.91 ± 3.38 mm | 7.15 ±1.39 mm | - | - | - | - | - |
| PRP | 18 | 19.01 ± 4.20 mm | 4.74 ± 0.91 mm | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
| PRF | 17 | 9.80 ± 3.03 mm | 6.00 ± 1.57 mm | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
| PP | 17 | 8.55 ± 3.55 mm | 4.17 ± 1.33 mm | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Jayadevan et al., 2021 [33] | REP | RCT | PRF | 10 | 12 | IOPAR | 50% | 80% | 45.5% | ||||
| APRF | 11 | 91% | 72% | 40% | |||||||||
| Peng et al., 2017 [29] | REP | NRCT | Conventional GIC | 32 | 12 | IOPAR | 26.3% | 10.5% | - | - | - | - | - |
| ProRoot MTA | 28 | 30.7% | 11.0% | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Lv et al., 2018 [30] | REP | NRCT | BC | 5 | 12 | IOPAR | 80% | 80% | - | 80% | 100% | 100% | - |
| PRF | 5 | 80% | 80% | - | 80% | 100% | 100% | - | |||||
| Cheng et al., 2022 [31] | REP | NRCT | BC | 32 | 16 | IOPAR | F = 17.4 ± 16.4% L = 52.5 ± 24.8% Ci = 26.0 ± 37.3% A = 37.0% |
F = 8.3 ± 11.7% L = 23.8 ± 18.1% Ci = 10.3 ± 16.6% A = 12.0% |
F = 76.4 ± 30.9% L = 69.3 ± 43.9% Ci = 45.0 ± 37.7% A = 100.0% |
||||
| CGF | 30 | ||||||||||||
| Chueh et al., 2009 [32] | REP | NRCT | MTA | 8 | 6–108 | IOPAR | - | 87.5% | 87.5% | - | - | - | - |
| MTA + GP/GP/ Amalgam |
15 | - | 93.33% | 80% | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Bonte et al., 2014 [34] | APP | RCT | MTA | 15 | 12 | IOPAR | - | - | 76.5% | - | - | 82.4% | - |
| CH | 15 | - | - | 50% | - | - | 75.0% | - | |||||
| Santhakumar et al., 2018 [35] | APP | RCT | PRF Gel | 19 | 18 | IOPAR | - | 94.73% | - | - | 100% | - | - |
| PRF Membrane | 19 | - | 89.47% | - | - | 100% | - | - | |||||
| Kandemir Demirci et al., 2019 [36] | APP | NRCT | MTA | 39 | 12 | IOPAR | - | - | 74% | - | - | 92% | - |
| CH | 34 | - | - | 79% | - | - | 91% | - | |||||
| Tek et al., 2021 [37] | APP | NRCT | Apical plug with MTA | 10 | 12 | IOPAR | - | - | - | - | - | 50% | - |
| Collagen sponge + apical plug with MTA | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | 62.5% | - | |||||
| Kinirons et al., 2001 [38] | APP | NRCT | CH in Newcastle | 43 | 3 | IOPAR | - | - | 100% | - | - | - | - |
| CH in Belfast | 64 | - | - | 100% | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Lin et al., 2017 [39] | REP vs. APP | RCT | BC | 69 | 12 | CBCT | 82.60% | 81.16% | - | 65.21% | - | 100% | - |
| Vitapex paste | 34 | 0% | 26.47% | - | 82.35% | - | 100% | - | |||||
| Xuan et al., 2018 [40] | REP vs. APP | RCT | hDPSC | 20 | 12 | CBCT | - | 5.24 ± 0.92 mm | 2.64 ± 0.73 mm | - | 43.43 ± 0.86 mm | - | - |
| CH | 10 | - | 0.88 ± 0.67 mm | 0.62 ± 0.22 mm | - | 0.17 ± 0.16 mm | - | - | |||||
| Alobaid et al., 2014 [41] | REP vs. APP | NRCT | BC | 19 | 15–22 | IOPAR | - | 20% | 10.2 ± −4.0% | - | - | - | - |
| CH & MTA | 12 | - | 12.5% | 1.4 ± −3.2% | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Casey et al., 2022 [42] | REP vs. APP | NRCT | BC | 93 | 31–33 | IOPAR | - | - | - | - | 19% | - | - |
| CH & MTA | 118 | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | |||||
| Caleza-Jimenez et al., 2022 [43] | REP vs. APP | NRCT | BC | 9 | 6–66 | IOPAR | 12.76% | 34.57 ± 16.62% |
|||||
| MTA | 9 | 0.29% | −3.36 ± 4.13% | ||||||||||
| Pereira et al., 2021 [44] | REP vs. APP | NRCT | BC | 22 | 12–30 | IOPAR | 0.21 ± 0.35 mm | 1.42 ± 1.25 mm | 0.88 ± 0.77 mm | - | - | 95.45% | - |
| MTA | 22 | 0.03 ± 0.07 mm | 0.88 ± 0.7 mm | 0.6 ± 0.51 mm | - | - | 86.36% | - | |||||
| Jeeruphan et al., 2012 [45] | REP vs. APP | NRCT | BC | 20 | 24 | IOPAR | - | 14.9% | 28.2% | - | - | 80% | - |
| MTA | 19 | - | 6.1% | 0.00% | - | - | 68% | - | |||||
| CH | 22 | - | 0.4% | 1.52% | - | - | 77% | - | |||||
| Silujjai et al., 2017 [46] | REP vs. APP | NRCT | BC | 17 | 12–96 | IOPAR | - | 9.51 ± 18.14% | 13.75 ± 19.91% | - | - | - | - |
| MTA | 26 | - | 8.55 ± 8.97% | −3.30 ± 14.14% | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Chen et al., 2016 [47] | REP vs. APP | NRCT | CH, BC, MTA | 17 | 12 | IOPAR | - | 94.12% | - | - | - | - | - |
| CH, MTA | 21 | - | 85.71% | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
Legend: REP = Regenerative Endodontic Procedure; APP = Apexification Procedure; RCT = Randomized clinical trial; NRCT = Non-randomised clinical trial; DWT = Dentin wall thickness; IRL = Increase in root length; AFW = Apical foramen width; AC = apical closure; VR = Vitality response; PAH = Periapical healing; BD = Bone density; BC = Blood clot; PRP = Platelet rich plasma; PRF = Platelet rich fibrin; PP = Platelet plug; MTA = Mineral trioxide aggregate; CH = Calcium hydroxide; hDPSC = Human dental pulp stem cells; RA = radiological assessment; IOPAR = Intraoral periapical radiographs; CBCT = cone-beam computed tomography; S = Satisfactory; G= Good; E= Excellent; ICC= Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; HU= Hounsfield units F= Fracture; L = Luxation; Ci= Combined injuries; A= Avulsion.