This position statement represents a consensus of an expert committee convened by the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) on revitalization procedures. The statement is based on current clinical and scientific evidence as well as the expertise of the committee. The goal is to provide suitably trained dentists with a protocol including procedural details for the treatment of immature teeth with pulp necrosis as well as a patient consent form. Revitalization is a biologically based treatment as an alternative to apexification in properly selected cases. Previously published review articles provide more detailed background information and the basis for this position statement (Journal of Endodontics, 39, 2013, S30; Journal of Endodontics, 39, 2013, 319; Journal of Endodontics, 40, 2014, 1045; Dental Traumatology, 31, 2015, 267; International Endodontic Journal, 2015, doi: ). As controlled clinical trials are lacking and new evidence is still emerging, this position statement will be updated at appropriate intervals. This might lead to changes to the protocol provided here.

AimTo analyse the regenerative potential of leucocyte‐ and platelet‐rich fibrin (L‐PRF) during periodontal surgery.Materials and MethodsAn electronic and hand search were conducted in three databases. Only randomized clinical trials were selected and no follow‐up limitation was applied. Pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bone fill, keratinized tissue width (KTW), recession reduction and root coverage (%) were considered as outcome. When possible, meta‐analysis was performed.ResultsTwenty‐four articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three subgroups were created: intra‐bony defects (IBDs), furcation defects and periodontal plastic surgery. Meta‐analysis was performed in all the subgroups. Significant PD reduction (1.1 ± 0.5 mm, p < 0.001), CAL gain (1.2 ± 0.6 mm, p < 0.001) and bone fill (1.7 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.001) were found when comparing L‐PRF to open flap debridement (OFD) in IBDs. For furcation defects, significant PD reduction (1.9 ± 1.5 mm, p = 0.01), CAL gain (1.3 ± 0.4 mm, p < 0.001) and bone fill (1.5 ± 0.3 mm, p < 0.001) were reported when comparing L‐PRF to OFD. When L‐PRF was compared to a connective tissue graft, similar outcomes were recorded for PD reduction (0.2 ± 0.3 mm, p > 0.05), CAL gain (0.2 ± 0.5 mm, p > 0.05), KTW (0.3 ± 0.4 mm, p > 0.05) and recession reduction (0.2 ± 0.3 mm, p > 0.05).ConclusionsL‐PRF enhances periodontal wound healing.

AimTo analyse the effect of leucocyte‐ and platelet‐rich fibrin (L‐PRF) on bone regeneration procedures and osseointegration.Materials and MethodsAn electronic and hand search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane). Only randomized clinical trials, written in English where L‐PRF was applied in bone regeneration and implant procedures, were selected. No follow‐up restrictions were applied.ResultsA total of 14 articles were included and processed. Three subgroups were created depending on the application: sinus floor elevation (SFE), alveolar ridge preservation and implant therapy. In SFE, for a lateral window as well as for the trans‐alveolar technique, histologically faster bone healing was reported when L‐PRF was added to most common xenografts. L‐PRF alone improved the preservation of the alveolar width, resulting in less buccal bone resorption compared to natural healing. In implant therapy, better implant stability over time and less marginal bone loss were observed when L‐PRF was applied. Meta‐analyses could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data.ConclusionsDespite the lack of strong evidence found in this systematic review, L‐PRF might have a positive effect on bone regeneration and osseointegration.

REP of an immature permanent infected tooth may heal the periapical infection and may result in a combination of regeneration and repair of the pulp-dentin complex.

No abstract

Background Hydraulic materials are used in Endodontics due to their hydration characteristics namely the formation of calcium hydroxide when mixing with water and also because of their hydraulic properties. These materials are presented in various consistencies and delivery methods. They are composed primarily of tricalcium and dicalcium silicate, and also include a radiopacifier, additives and an aqueous or a non‐aqueous vehicle. Only materials whose primary reaction is with water can be classified as hydraulic. Objectives Review of the classification of hydraulic materials by Camilleri and the literature pertaining to specific uses of hydraulic cements in endodontics namely intra‐coronal, intra‐radicular and extra‐radicular. Review of the literature on the material properties linked to specific uses providing the current status of these materials after which future trends and gaps in knowledge could be identified. Methods The literature was reviewed using PUBMED, and for each clinical use, the in vitro properties such as physical, chemical, biological and antimicrobial characteristics and clinical data were extracted and evaluated. Results A large number of publications were retrieved for each clinical use and these were grouped depending on the property type being investigated. Conclusions The hydraulic cements have made a difference in clinical outcomes. The main shortcoming is the poor testing methodologies employed which provide very limited information and also inhibits adequate clinical translation. Furthermore, the clinical protocols need to be updated to enable the materials to be employed effectively.

Although regenerative endodontic procedures have yielded an impressive body of favorable outcomes, the treatment of necrotic immature permanent teeth in particular remains to be a challenge. Recent advances in dental stem cell (DSC) research have gained increasing insight in their regenerative potential and prospective use in the formation of viable dental tissues. Numerous studies have already reported successful dental pulp regeneration following application of dental pulp stem cells, stem cells from the apical papilla, or dental follicle precursor cells in different in vivo models. Next to responsive cells, dental tissue engineering also requires the support of an appropriate scaffold material, ranging from naturally occurring polymers to treated dentin matrix components. However, the routine use and banking of DSCs still holds some major challenges, such as culture-associated differences, patient-related variability, and the effects of culture medium additives. Only in-depth evaluation of these problems and the implementation of standardized models and protocols will effectively lead to better alternatives for patients who no longer benefit from current treatment protocols.

No abstract