Trial reportBMC oral health2019
Biodentine
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03779698 (BiodentineTM Versus Formocresol Pulpotomy Technique in Primary Molars), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
BiodentineTM Versus Formocresol Pulpotomy Technique in Primary Molars: A 12-Month Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Histopathological and immunohistochemical characterization of pulp tissue reaction to ACTIVA BioACTIVE base/liner in primary teeth pulpotomy: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Cost efficiency of calcium silicate and glass ionomer cements in pulpotomies of first mandibular primary molars.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Buccal Midazolam in Comparison With Intranasal Midazolam Sedation in Uncooperative Children During Dental Treatment.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Pulpotomy in primary teeth: Biodentine™ versus calcium hydroxide. A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
- Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Low-level Laser Therapy and Formocresol as Pulpotomy Agents in Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Clinical and radiographic success of TheraCal versus Formocresol in primary teeth pulpotomy: A systematic review andThe Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
- Treatment Outcomes of Pulpotomy in Primary Teeth with Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Outcome assessment methods of bioactive and biodegradable materials as pulpotomy agents in primary and permanent teeth: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Pulpotomy of mature teeth: A systematic analysis of the failed cases.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
- Advanced Applications in Pediatric Dentistry: A Worldwide Perspective of the Last 13 Years.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Histopathological Biocompatibility Evaluation of TheraCal PT, NeoMTA, and MTA Angelus in a Murine Model.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Comparative efficacy of medicaments or techniques for pulpotomy of primary molars: a network meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Review
- Pulp Therapy of Primary Dentition; its Relevance despite Insufficient Histological Evidence: A Review.Iranian endodontic journal · 2023Review
- A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: AnDental research journal · 2022Article
- Success rate of three capping materials used in pulpotomy of primary molars: A randomized clinical trial.The Saudi dental journal · 2021Article
- Stability Evaluation of Lyotropic Liquid Crystalline Precursor for the Co-delivery of Chlorhexidine and Silver Nanoparticles.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2021Article
- An Update on Newer Pulpotomy Agents in Primary Teeth: A Literature Review.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2021Review
- Article
- Different Pulp Dressing Materials for the Pulpotomy of Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Chlorhexidine Polymer Scaffold, 3Mixtatin, and Formocresol for Vital Primary Pulp Therapy: A Randomized 6-month Clinical Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this clinical study was to prospectively compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of Biodentine
methodsA randomized, split-mouth study design was used with a sample of 37 healthy children aged 4- to 8-year-old. A total of 56 pairs (112 teeth) of carious primary teeth, 1 pair per child, were selected for treatment. One tooth from each pair was randomly assigned to either the Biodentine
resultsAt 12 months, the clinical success rates of both Biodentine
conclusionsBoth Biodentine
trial registrationRegistered on NCT03779698 . Date of Registration: 18 December 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.