ArticleBDJ open2023
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of NeoMTA versus conventional white mineral trioxide aggregate in revascularization of non-vital immature permanent anterior teeth (A randomized controlled trial).
Article in BDJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tooth discoloration potential of different pulp capping materials in direct and indirect pulp capping procedures: a spectrophotometric in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Tooth Discoloration After Regenerative Endodontic Therapy in Immature Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Bioactive Biosilicate Cements in Pediatric Dentistry - A Review of the Latest Materials.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Review
- Discoloration after revascularization using calcium phosphosilicate-based bioceramic versus mineral trioxide aggregate in necrotic immature permanent anterior teeth: A Randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare clinically and radiographically the effect of using two different coronal plug materials (NeoMTA versus Conventional White mineral trioxide aggregate) in revascularization of non-vital immature permanent anterior teeth, with special reference to the assessment and evaluation of discoloration potential over a period of one year.
methodsRevascularization procedure was performed in (30) immature permanent non-vital anterior teeth which were randomly allocated to two equal groups (n = 15). NeoMTA was used as coronal plug material in the Experimental Group (N), while conventional White mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) was used as a coronal plug material in the Control Group (W). All treated teeth were evaluated clinically at 1 week, 1, 3, and 12 months and radiographically at 12 months.
resultsThe overall clinical and radiographic success rate of Groups (N) and (W) at the end of the 12-month follow-up period was 100%. The discoloration was detected in a single tooth (9.1%) in Group (N) and three teeth (27.3%) in Group (W) but the difference between groups was not statistically significant.
conclusionsBoth NeoMTA and conventional WMTA were successful coronal plug materials in the revascularization of non-vital immature permanent teeth achieving a high level of clinical and radiographic success. NeoMTA is a promising coronal plug material that can be used for revascularization procedures in the esthetic zone as it showed less discoloration potential compared with conventional WMTA, however, there was no statistically significant difference between both materials.
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.