ArticleDental research journal2022
A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comprehensive review of composition, properties, clinical applications, and future perspectives of calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement: a systematic analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Pooled it
- Cost efficiency of calcium silicate and glass ionomer cements in pulpotomies of first mandibular primary molars.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Article
- Article
- Prevalence and Management of Early Childhood Caries in Preschoolers.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Outcome assessment methods of bioactive and biodegradable materials as pulpotomy agents in primary and permanent teeth: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preservation of pulpal vitality is of paramount importance as the vital functioning pulp is capable of initiating a unique reparative capacity. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars. Materials and Methods: This Results: Clinical evaluation showed 100% success with BD™ and CEM cement; whereas 96.2% success was seen with MTA Plus™ and Retro MTA Conclusion: All four regenerative materials showed high success in the pulpotomy of primary molars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36618772PMC9811967What 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.