This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed clinical, radiographic and functional retention outcomes in immature necrotic permanent teeth treated either with pulp revascularization or apexification after a minimum of three months to determine which one provides the best results. The literature was screened via PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases up to June 2017 to select observational studies that compared pulp revascularization and apexification treatments assessing clinical, radiographic and functional retention outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed screening and evaluation of articles. A total of 231 articles were retrieved from databases, wherein only four articles were selected for full-text analyses. After exclusion criteria, three studies remained in quantitative and qualitative analyses. Pooled-effect estimates were obtained comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes ('overall outcome') and functional retention rates between apexification and pulp revascularization treatment. The meta-analysis comparing apexification vs. revascularization for 'overall outcome' (Z=0.113, p=0.910, RR=1.009, 95%CI:0.869-1.171) and functional retention rates (Z=1.438, p=0.150, RR=1.069, 95%CI:0.976-1.172) showed no statistically significant differences between the treatments. All studies were classified as high quality. The current literature regarding the clinical, radiographic and functional retention outcomes in immature necrotic permanent teeth treated either with pulp revascularization or apexification is limited. Based on our meta-analysis, the results do not favor one treatment modality over the other.
Keywords: Pulp revascularization; apexification; immature necrotic permanent teeth.