Abstract
ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of regenerative endodontic procedures compared with conventional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with periapical lesions.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that were included in the study compared regenerative endodontic procedures with traditional root canal treatment procedures in mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used for quality assessment, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan Web software, using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with a random-effects model applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test.ResultsThe analysis included five studies encompassing diverse regenerative strategies. Overall, regenerative endodontic procedures demonstrated comparable or superior clinical and radiographic healing outcomes relative to conventional treatments. Notably, certain regenerative approaches showed greater potential for restoring pulp vitality and reducing early postoperative pain. However, the quality of evidence was moderate, constrained by small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, and blinding challenges.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that regenerative endodontic procedures are promising alternatives to conventional root canal treatment procedures for mature teeth with periapical lesions. Despite these encouraging findings, further high-quality, multicenter trials with standardized protocols and extended follow-up periods are necessary to confirm the results and establish the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of regenerative endodontics.