ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2023
Morphological Interface Between Restorative and Pulp-Capping Materials: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival Evaluation of Restorations in Pulpotomized Primary Teeth with MTA or BiodentineJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Morphological Interface Between Restorative and Pulp-Capping Materials: A Systematic Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bioceramic materials (BCMs) are widely used in vital pulp therapy (VPT) for their biocompatibility and bioactivity; however, their mechanical properties are equally important in the clinical outcome of the pulp-capped teeth. Objective: To carry out an analysis of the research produced on the morphology of the interface between BM and restorative materials (RM) through a systematic review. Methodology: An electronic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science until December 9, 2022. The keywords used in combination with truncation and Boolean operators were: (morphology OR filtration OR porosity) AND (silicate OR composite) AND (cement) AND ("pulp capping" OR "vital pulp therapy" OR "vital pulp treatment"). Results: Of the 387 articles initially retrieved from the electronic search databases, 5 articles met the criteria for qualitative data collection. MTA and Biodentine were the most studied BCMs. All the articles used a scanning electron microscope as a method of evaluating the samples. Sample sizes and setting times of RM and BCMs differed between studies. Three out of 5 studies used similar conditions of recorded temperature and humidity of 37°C and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: The different biomaterials used, the application of adhesive systems, humidity and restoration time affect the bonding performance and the ultrastructural interface between BCMs and RMs. The scarcity of research on this point makes it necessary to delve into it and study new materials to obtain more scientific evidence.
Indexed as
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.