ArticleLaser therapy2019
Comparative evaluation of clinical outcome of indirect pulp treatment with calcium hydroxide, calcium silicate and Er,Cr:YSGG laser in permanent molars.
Article in Laser therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision-ready evidence for vital pulp therapy: a network meta-analysis of bioactive materials in mature permanent teeth.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of diode laser irradiation along with Biodentine on dental pulp stem cell proliferation and pluripotent gene expression.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Class-I and Class-II Restorations with the Application of a Flowable Composite as an Intermediate Layer-A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy and pulpectomy in primary and permanent teeth: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Review
- Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to compare preservation of pulp vitality by indirect pulp treatment with calcium hydroxide, calcium silicate based cement (Biodentine) and Er,Cr:YSGG laser in permanent molars. MATERIALS AND
methods30 patients were selected for this study as per the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the age group of 6-14 years and then randomly allocated to three groups A, B & C. In group A, after caries excavation, calcium hydroxide (Dycal) was placed at the floor. In group B, after caries excavation, calcium silicate based cement (Biodentine) was placed at the floor. In group C, after caries excavation, decontamination of the cavity was done with Er,Cr:YSGG laser. This was followed by placement of permanent restorative material in all the groups. Clinical and radiographic success was monitored at 3, 6 and months. Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science-21 (SPSS-21).
resultsAt the end of 9 months, overall success rate of indirect pulp was 86.6%. There was no significant difference between the three groups. (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe study showed that the success of indirect pulp treatment is independent of the type of liner used for pulp capping. Moreover, the study also shows that Er,Cr;YSGG laser can be effectively used for indirect pulp capping procedures.
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.