Scoping review reveals scaffold strategies for pulp-dentine regeneration in orthotopic models, indicating key challenges.
Regenerative endodontic therapy (RET) has emerged as a biologically driven approach for managing immature teeth with necrotic pulps. Scaffolds are central to this process, providing structural support for the cells and delivering bioactive cues essential for pulp-dentine regeneration. This scoping review critically evaluates scaffold-based RET approaches assessed in orthotopic animal models, identifies key translational challenges and outlines future research directions. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for studies published up to January 2025. Eligible studies included scaffold-based strategies tested in orthotopic models with histological assessment. The results were categorised by scaffold materials: (1) Natural polymers, (2) synthetic polymers, (3) platelet concentrates and (4) acellular extracellular matrices (ECMs). Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Natural polymers, particularly collagen composite materials, tended to favour mineralised tissue over organised pulp-like regeneration. Scaffolds composed of gelatin seem a promising candidate, particularly when combined with dental pulp stem cells. Conflicting results have been reported regarding polysaccharide-based scaffolds, with chitosan showing promising potential, especially when combined with photobiomodulation therapy, although further research is needed. Platelet concentrates, including platelet-rich fibrin, facilitated apical closure but lacked consistent pulp-like tissue formation. Acellular ECMs, especially decellularised pulp matrices, demonstrated the most promising outcomes, promoting organised pulp-like tissue formation, although some inflammatory responses were noted. In summary, scaffold-based RET holds significant promise for pulp-dentine regeneration and root maturation. However, inconsistent outcomes remain a key limitation. Future research should focus on optimising scaffold design, standardising evaluation protocols and employing clinically relevant models to enhance clinical translation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matoug‐Elwerfelli et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: