Pulpal and periradicular response to caries: current management and regenerative options.

The pulp-dentin complex is a strategic and dynamic barrier to various insults that plague the dentition. Researchers have yet to understand the complete potential of this shifting junction and its components. The most common cause of injury to the pulp-dentin complex is carious breakdown of enamel and dentin. In recent years, there has been a change in restorative management of caries. The emphasis is on strategies to preserve dentin and protect the pulp. This article provides a brief review of the effect of caries on the pulp, of subsequent events on the periradicular tissues, and of current understanding of treatment modalities.

Regenerative therapy: a periodontal-endodontic perspective.

Periodontal and endodontic diseases are inflammatory responses leading to periodontal and pulpal tissue loss. Regenerative therapies aim to restore the lost structures to vitality and function. Various materials and treatments methods have been used such as bone grafts, guided tissue regeneration, enamel matrix derivatives, growth and differentiation factors, and stem cells. Although the current materials and methods demonstrated adequate clinical results, true and complete biological tissue regeneration is not yet attainable. The current article reviews chronologically the materials and methods used in periodontal and endodontic regeneration highlighting their clinical success and shortcomings, and discussing future directions in regenerative therapy.

Regenerative endodontics and tissue engineering: what the future holds?

The work performed by researchers in regenerative endodontics and tissue engineering over the last decades has been superb; however, many questions remain to be answered. The basic biologic mechanisms must be elucidated that will allow the development of dental pulp and dentin in situ. Stress must be placed on the many questions that will lead to the design of effective, safe treatment options and therapies. This article discusses those questions, the answers to which may become the future of regenerative endodontics. The future remains bright, but proper support and patience are required.

Treatment of Class II molar furcation involvement: meta-analyses of reentry results.

BACKGROUND: Predictable regeneration of lost periodontal tissues in furcations is difficult to achieve. This paper investigates the efficacy of different treatment modalities for Class II molar furcations. METHODS: Publications in English were searched using PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases combined with hand searching from January 1, 1966 to October 1, 2007. The search included randomized controlled human trials in molar Class II furcations with over 6 months of surgical reentry follow-up. Changes in vertical probing depths, vertical attachment levels, and vertical and horizontal bone levels were compared. RESULTS: The search identified 801 articles of which 34 of 108 randomized clinical trials met the criteria. Thirteen trials had test and control arms allowing three meta-analyses: 1) five comparing non-resorbable versus resorbable membranes, 2) five comparing non-resorbable membranes versus open flap debridement and 3) three comparing resorbable membranes versus open flap debridement. There was significant improvement for resorbable versus non-resorbable membranes mainly in vertical bone fill (0.77 ± 0.33 mm; [95% CI; 0.13, 1.41]). Non-resorbable membranes showed significant improvement in vertical probing reduction (0.75 ± 0.31 mm; [95% CI; 0.14, 1.35]), attachment gain (1.41 ± 0.46 mm; [95% CI; 0.50, 2.31]), horizontal bone fill (1.16 ± 0.29 mm; [95% CI; 0.59, 1.73]), and vertical bone fill (0.58 ± 0.11 mm; [95% CI; 0.35, 0.80]) over open flap debridement. Resorbable membranes showed significant improvement in vertical probing reduction (0.73 ± 0.16 mm; [95% CI; 0.42, 1.05]), attachment gain (0.88 ± 0.16 mm; [95% CI; 0.55, 1.20]), horizontal bone fill (0.98 ± 0.12 mm; [95% CI; 0.74, 1.21]) and vertical bone fill (0.78 ± 0.19 mm; [95% CI; 0.42, 1.15]) over open flap debridement. CONCLUSIONS: Guided tissue regeneration with the use of resorbable membranes was superior to non-resorbable membranes in vertical bone fill. Both types of membranes were more effective than open flap debridement in reducing vertical probing depths and gaining vertical attachment levels and in gaining vertical and horizontal bone.