Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33772121›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2021

Are different pulp treatment techniques and associated medicaments effective for the treatment of extensive decay in primary teeth?

Paula Waterhouse

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06874062 (Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of the Success of Resin-Modified Calcium Silicate in Primary Tooth Pulpotomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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.

NCT06874062 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of the Success of Resin-Modified Calcium Silicate in Primary Tooth Pulpotomy

TypeinterventionalSponsorAtaturk UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled70ConditionsPulpotomyArmsNeoputty MTA Pulpotomy Treatment, ProRoot MTA Pulpotomy Treatment, Theracal PT Pulpotomy Treatment, Stainless Steel Crown Application
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paula WaterhouseClinical Senior Lecturer in Child Dental Health and Honorary Consultant in Paediatric Dentistry, The School of Dental Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Newcastle Dental Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Newcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data sources Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register and Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science, Open Grey, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There were no restrictions on language or publication dates.Study selection Two reviewers selected randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing different pulp interventions in extensively decayed primary teeth, which combined a pulp treatment technique and a medicament.Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted independently by two reviewers recording year of publication, country of origin, inclusion/exclusion criteria, description of interventions, sample size, mean age, duration of follow-up and outcome data. Risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed on RCTs comparing different medicaments for the same pulp technique or different pulp treatment techniques with each other.Results Eighty-seven RCTs were included in qualitative synthesis, yielding 59 studies for meta-analysis. The 87 RCTs involved 7,140 randomised teeth with 17 split-mouth RCTs and 70 parallel arm design. In total, 125 different comparisons were examined using clinical and radiological failure rates; 75 compared different pulpotomy agents or techniques, 25 compared different pulpectomy agents, four compared pulpotomy and pulpectomy, and 21 compared different agents for direct pulp capping. Where possible, data were compared for 6, 12 and 24 months. For pulpotomy, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) appears least likely to fail over those time periods. For pulpectomy, results were inconclusive comparing failure rates between various agents; however, two RCTs found a lower failure rate for zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) compared with Vitapex. For direct pulp capping, there was a low number of studies undertaking the same comparisons; calcium silicates (eg MTA and Biodentine) hold future promise.Conclusions Overall, evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. For pulpotomy, MTA may be the best pulpotomy medicament in primary molars. Formocresol is effective but generally accepted as toxic. Biodentine, enamel matrix derivatives, laser application or Ankaferd Blood Stopper (a plant-based haemostatic agent used to control gastrointestinal bleeds) appear to be second choices. If all of these are unavailable, an application of sodium hypochlorite may be the safest option. For pulpectomy, evidence was inconclusive; however, ZOE paste may be more effective than Vitapex, but no further conclusions could be made. For direct pulp capping, the evidence was of low to very low quality. The best alternative may be a tricalcium silicate, especially MTA. Future RCTs may change these findings.

Indexed as

Dental CariesHumansPulpectomyPulpotomyTooth, DeciduousZinc Oxide-Eugenol CementZinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement

Identifiers

PMID33772121
OpenAlexW3139381730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.