Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34682106›Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Vital Pulp Therapy in Primary Dentition: Pulpotomy-A 100-Year Challenge.

Andreea Igna

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06611631 (Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Hyaluronic Acid), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06611631 phase1not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Hyaluronic Acid (Gengigel Teething) Versus Mineral Trioxide Aggregate( Angelus) as Pulpotomy Agent in Vital Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled34ConditionsPulpotomies Primary Teeth, Pulp Disease, DentalArmsHyaluronic acid pulpotomy, mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Andreea IgnaPediatric Dentistry Research Center, Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, "Victor Babeş" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timişoara, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulpotomy has long been the most indicated vital pulp procedure in primary molars with extensive caries. The success of a pulpotomy is highly technique sensitive and it depends upon many factors, such as diagnosis accuracy, caries excavation method, pulp dressing material, quality of the final restoration and operator experience. This paper provides an overview of the pulpotomy procedure in primary teeth over a century, with reference to advances in technique, medication and restoration possibilities and challenges and controversies surrounding the subject as well as future directions.

Indexed as

challengesprimary teethpulpotomy

Identifiers

PMID34682106
PMCPMC8534739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.