Evidence Hub

Change in the size of apical radiolucencies in adolescent’s mature maxillary incisors following retreatment with two regenerative endodontic techniques: a 12-month randomised clinical trial using volume-based cone-beam computed tomography

Norhan Khaled Omar Wahba, S. S. E. Bahnasy, Yassmin Mohamed ElMakawi, P. M. Dummer, V. Nagendrababu, G. Rossi-Fedele, F. A. Sans, D. Pasqualini et al.

Clinical Oral Investigations, 2025

48 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

The primary aim of this randomised clinical trial was to compare the one year clinical and radiographic outcome of mature permanent central incisors with periapical radiolucencies in adolescents after root canal retreatment using two regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) with revitalization using induced blood clot formation (BC) or platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The secondary aim was to assess the responses of the teeth to thermal and electric pulp tests. Fifty-four root filled maxillary central incisors with post-treatment endodontic disease and periapical radiolucencies in 48 adolescents were allocated into two groups (n = 27) using permuted block randomisation. The teeth in one group were root canal retreated with induced BC formation and teeth in the other with PRF. At baseline and at one year, teeth were evaluated clinically and radiographically using periapical radiographs and CBCT scans. Changes in the maximum diameter and volume of the periapical lesions were assessed and pulp sensibility was assessed at one year using thermal and electrical tests. Differences in lesion diameter and volume between the two groups were tested using the Mann–Whitney U test. A linear regression model explored the relationship between independent variables and lesion size. The significant level was set at 5%. Reduction in periapical lesion size in the BC and PRF techniques occurred in 85% and 100% of teeth, respectively, with no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 48 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free