# Novel Approaches for the Treatment of Necrotic Immutative
## 3 Results
### Clinical Success
[21] evaluated at 12 months the assessment of pain, inflammation, or swelling after the use of PRF or PRP for REP. The patients in the first visit underwent conventional cavity preparation and instrumentation, sodium hypochlorite washes, placement of triple antibiotic paste, and the access to the cavity was closed with cotton pellets and intermediate restorative material. After 3 weeks, the participants were distributed in the group of PRF (G1), or the group of BC (G2), or the group of PRP (G3). The researchers reported success rates of 90%, 100%, and 100% (G1, G2, and G3, respectively). [PERSON] et al. [22] evaluated (for at least 6 months) the use of the CMB for REP. The participants, in a first visit, underwent the conventional cavity preparation with instrumentation technique, sodium hypochlorite washes, placement of calcium hydroxide paste, and temporary sealing with glass ionomer. Later, the participants were distributed into the group of intervention (G1) treated by BC + CMB or the control group (G2) using only BC. The researchers reported that both study groups were clinically successful for achieve the complete resolution of signs and symptoms. However, in this study, there was a lack of the criteria, signs, and symptoms considered for determining the periapical healing. [PERSON] et al. [23] conducted a triple-blind clinical trial to evaluate the use of PRF in two modalities as biological scaffolds in REP. These preparations were platelet-rich fibrin in its gel form (PRFg) and membrane form (PRFm). The study group compared the clinical success (absence of pain, swelling, mobility, and lack of sensitivity to percussion). The research group reported that, after 6 and 12 months of the treatment, both groups were clinically asymptomatic. Also, after 18 months of follow-up in both groups, a failed case with mobility teeth and pain were shown, concluding a similar success for both groups. [PERSON] et al. [24] evaluated (at 12 months) the clinical success based on the regression of signs and symptoms associated with necrotic teeth in two groups of REP. The study group, treated with BC plus PRF, was compared with a group treated with BC. The authors reported that all cases showed 100% success in both groups. [PERSON] et al. [25] evaluated success rates every 3 months with a follow-up period of 28.25 \(\pm\) 1.20 months in four groups of REP following according to the treatment used: PRP group (G1), PRF group (G2), platelet pellet group (G3), or BC group (G4). The success rates were scored as 0 (failure), 1 (resolution of disease), or 2 (resolution of disease + radiographic root development and positive response to cold testing and electric pulp testing). The authors reported that in all groups, the most commonly rated success score was 2 (G1 = 11/18, G2 = 11/17, G3 = 13/17, G4 = 15/21), and there was no significant difference in the success scores among groups. [PERSON] et al. (a) [26] compared, clinically and radiographically, the regenerative potential of PRP (G1) compared to BC (G2), and concluded (about the primary clinical outcomes of resolution of pain, swelling, mobility, and sinus/fistula) that all cases showed 100% success. At 12 months of follow-up, at the end of the study, all revascularized/revatilized teeth did not respond to the pulp sensitivity tests, thermal (cold/heat), and electrical test, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. EIShesthawy et al. [27] evaluated the clinical success in teeth treated with PRP (G1) compared to BC (G2) for REP. The clinical examination was performed by assessing tooth color, tenderness to percussion, swelling, sinus tracts, and mobility. At 6 months of follow-up, the authors reported around 85% of success in both groups. [PERSON] et al. (b) [28] evaluated the regenerative potential of a platelet-rich fibrin scaffold (PRPS) (G1) versus platelet-rich fibrin scaffold (PRFS) (G2) for the treatment of the NIT (upper central incisors).