Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27037567›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2016

Different materials for direct pulp capping: systematic review and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Falk Schwendicke, Fredrik Brouwer, Anja Schwendicke, Sebastian Paris

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. [A randomized controlled trial of iRoot BP Plus used as pulp capping agent in the complex fracture of young permanent tooth].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2024
    Trial
  5. Direct pulp capping in asymptomatic carious primary molars using three different pulp capping materials: a prospective clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2022
    Trial
  6. Direct pulp capping versus pulpotomy with MTA for carious primary molars: a randomised clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2019
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Direct pulp capping procedures - Evidence and practice.The Japanese dental science review · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Falk SchwendickeDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. falk.schwendicke@charite.de.
Fredrik BrouwerDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Anja SchwendickeDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian ParisDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe systematically assessed randomized controlled trials comparing direct pulp capping materials.

methodsTrials comparing materials for direct capping and evaluating clinically and/or radiographically determined success after minimum 3 months were included. Two reviewers independently screened electronic databases (Medline, Central, Embase) and performed hand searches. Risk of bias was assessed and meta-analyses were performed, separated for dentition. Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors. Strength of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.

resultsFrom a total of 453 identified studies, 11 (all with high risk of bias) investigating 1094 teeth (922 patients) were included. Six studies were on primary teeth (all with carious exposures) and five on permanent teeth (carious and artificial exposures). Mean follow-up was 14 months (range 3-24). Most studies used calcium hydroxide as control, comparing it to mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (three studies), bonding without prior etching/conditioning (two), or bonding with prior etching/conditioning, enamel matrix proteins, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, calcium sulfate, zinc oxide eugenol, corticosteroids, antibiotics, or formocresol (each in only one study). One study compared MTA and calcium-enriched cement. In permanent teeth, risk of failure was significantly decreased if MTA instead of calcium hydroxide was used (risk ratio (RR) [95 % confidence intervals (CI)] 0.59 [0.39/0.90]); no difference was found for primary teeth. Other comparisons did not find significant differences or were supported by only one study. No firm evidence was reached according to trial sequential analysis.

conclusionThere is insufficient data to recommend or refute the use of a specific material. More long-term practice-based studies with real-life exposures are required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To reduce risk of failure, dentists might consider using MTA instead of calcium hydroxide (CH) for direct capping. Current evidence is insufficient for definitive recommendations.

Indexed as

Dental MaterialsAluminum CompoundsCalcium CompoundsCalcium HydroxideDental Pulp CappingDrug CombinationsHumansOxidesSilicatesAluminum CompoundsCalcium CompoundsCalcium HydroxideDental MaterialsDrug Combinationsmineral trioxide aggregateOxidesSilicatesDentalDirect cappingEndodonticsEvidence-based dentistryPulpVitality

Identifiers

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.