Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2021
A randomised controlled clinical trial comparing pure Portland cement and formocresol pulpotomies followed from 2 to 4 years.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molar pulpotomy using formocresol, portland cement, and NeoMTA plus: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Calcium-Silicate-Based Materials in Primary-Tooth Pulpotomy: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Hyaluronic acid as a pulpotomy material in primary molars: an up to 30 months retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Outcome assessment methods of bioactive and biodegradable materials as pulpotomy agents in primary and permanent teeth: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Vital Pulpotomy on immature lower first permanent molars using Portland cement, a case of failure and success-case report with 2 years follow-up.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Pulp Therapy of Primary Dentition; its Relevance despite Insufficient Histological Evidence: A Review.Iranian endodontic journal · 2023Review
- A Large Dentigerous Cyst in a Child as a Complication of Deciduous Molar Endodontic Treatment: An Interesting Case Report with Short Literature Review.Case reports in dentistry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the present prospective randomised clinical control trial was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic success rate of pulpotomies in primary molars using pure Portland cement versus formocresol. Pure Portland cement has shown a high rate of success in pulpotomy treatments, with no side effects.
methodsHealthy 3- to 11-year-old children were treated with pulpotomies on primary molars as part of their scheduled dental treatment. Pulp dressing alternated randomly between pure Portland cement and formocresol. Data were analysed at follow-up periods up to 48 months.
results68 (50%) teeth with pure Portland cement and 68 (50%) teeth with formocresol in 136 healthy children (59 boys and 77 girls) were followed. The overall success rate of the pulpotomies in this study was 95.6%. Pure Portland cement was successful in 100% of the cases (68 out of 68), and formocresol in 91.1% (62 out of 68). No association was found between success and type of tooth or time range from treatment to last follow-up.
conclusionBased on this study's results, it can be concluded that there is no superiority of one material over the other and pure Portland cement can be used in primary molar pulpotomies.
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.