Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23712823›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2014

Two-year results of vital pulp therapy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis: an ongoing multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Saeed Asgary, Mohammad Jafar Eghbal, Jamileh Ghoddusi

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Mineral Trioxide AggregateIranian endodontic journal · 2022
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Two-year outcomes of electrosurgery and calcium-enriched mixture pulpotomy in primary teeth: a randomised clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2014
    Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Saeed AsgaryIranian Center for Endodontic Research, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Evin, 1983963113, Tehran, Iran, saasgary@yahoo.com.
Mohammad Jafar Eghbal
Jamileh Ghoddusi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOral healthcare expenses are increasing rapidly as a result of the growth of high-cost health technologies worldwide. In many developing/developed countries, low-cost tooth extraction is the alternative treatment option for a high-cost root canal therapy (RCT) for management of human molars with irreversible pulpitis. Vital pulp therapy with calcium-enriched mixture cement (VPT/CEM) as a new alternative treatment option has demonstrated excellent treatment outcomes up to 1 year; if 2-year radiographic/clinical effectiveness as well as cost-effectiveness of the VPT/CEM is also non-inferior compared with RCT, it can serve as a viable treatment for mature molars with irreversible pulpitis. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this prospective, multicenter (n = 23), non-inferiority clinical trial, 407 patients were randomized to either one-visit RCT (n = 202) or VPT/CEM (n = 205) for 27 months. In this part of study, the primary outcome measure was the 2-year clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was also analyzed.

resultsMean follow-up times were 24.62 ± 0.72 and 24.61 ± 0.69 months in RCT (n = 166) and VPT/CEM (n = 166) arms, respectively. Clinical success rates in the two study arms were equal (98.19%); however, radiographic success rates were 79.5 and 86.7% in RCT and VPT/CEM arms, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.053). The treatment time span mean was approximately three times greater in the RCT than in the VPT/CEM arm (94.07 vs. 31.09 min; P < 0.001). RCT had a cost of 171.5K per molar tooth compared with 44.5K for VPT.

conclusionsVPT/CEM reduced time and cost spent. When considering clinical as well as cost-effectiveness of VPT/CEM, this treatment option is not only non-inferior but also superior to RCT in mature permanent molar teeth with established irreversible pulpitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Vital pulp therapy with CEM is a cost-effective and reliable biological technique for endodontic treatment of permanent molar teeth with irreversible pulpitis and can be recommended for general clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMolarPulpitisPulpotomy

Identifiers

PMID23712823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.