Regenerating the Living Tooth.

A calcium-silicate cement over exposed pulp, with a dentin bridge forming beneath it.

Materials placed close to the dental pulp must satisfy both physical and biological requirements. They need to seal the site, remain stable under clinical conditions and provide handling, setting, radiopacity and mechanical properties appropriate to their use.

At the exposed or injured interface, composition, surface characteristics, alkalinity and ion release also alter the local environment encountered by cells. These material-dependent conditions can influence cell survival, differentiation and mineral deposition, making the interface itself part of the biological response.

Conceptual illustration of vascularised pulp-like tissue occupying the root canal.

Pulp regeneration requires viable tissue to organise throughout the confined anatomy of the root canal while maintaining access to nutrients and vascular support. Experimental models have shown that cell-containing scaffolds can support pulp-like tissue formation and dentin-associated structures within full-length human roots. The continuing challenge is to reproduce this organisation under conditions that are biologically and clinically relevant.

Illustration representing complementary biological and computational approaches within the programme.

The programme also examines approaches that extend what can be studied experimentally. On the biological side, this includes alternative cell sources and models for generating dentin-forming phenotypes. On the computational side, material datasets can be used to identify influential variables, predict outcomes and prioritise candidate formulations for experimental testing.

These approaches are complementary rather than interchangeable. Biological models address how cells and tissues form and function, while computational methods help navigate complex material design spaces.

Model scope Anatomical context Assay interference

Illustration: different models and assays make different aspects of the same biology observable.

Every experimental model captures some aspects of pulp biology and omits others. Cell culture, dentin-based models and full-root systems differ in anatomical context, cell organisation, transport conditions and the biological functions they can reproduce.

Assays also have limits. Materials can interfere with measurements, and a positive result in one endpoint does not necessarily predict performance in another. Interpreting a study therefore requires attention to both the biological question and the model used to answer it.