ArticleDental research journal2022
Article in Dental research journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Premixed calcium silicate-based materials for pulpotomy outcomes in permanent and deciduous teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the Success of a Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and a Pre-Mixed Bioceramic in Mature Teeth With Irreversible Pulpitis With Full Pulpotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Trial
- Comparative evaluation of various direct pulp capping materials using different blood derivatives on disease-free tooth: A histopathological assessment case series.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Histological evaluation of different concentrations of hyaluronic-acid-added zinc oxide eugenol on rat molar pulp.Odontology · 2025Article
- Elective full pulpotomy in mature permanent teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a two years retrospective study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Biodentine and Bioceramic as Pulp Medicaments Following Laser and Conventional Pulpotomy in Primary Molars: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulpotomy is one of the common vital pulp therapy procedures for primary molars. The present trend in pulpotomy materials is to use regenerative materials that promote dentinogenesis. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a very popular pulpotomy material. However, it has some limitations including difficult handling characteristics and long setting time. Tricalcium silicate cements evolved, in which bioceramic cements came into existence, have better properties than MTA. The aims and objectives of the study are to evaluate the efficacy of bioceramic putty with MTA as a pulp medicament in primary molars. Materials and Methods: In this randomized Results: At 3-month interval, the success rates were 96.7% and 93.1% with bioceramic and MTA groups, respectively. At 6- and 12-month interval, the success rates were 93.3% and 93.1% with bioceramic and MTA groups, respectively. However, the difference in success rate between the groups was statistically not significant at all the time intervals ( Conclusion: Bioceramic putty exhibited comparable results to MTA. Hence, it can be considered alternative pulpotomy agent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36426282PMC9680690What 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.