ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Chlorhexidine Polymer Scaffold, 3Mixtatin, and Formocresol for Vital Primary Pulp Therapy: A Randomized 6-month Clinical Study.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06478940 (Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of 3Mixtatin Versus MTA Used as Pulpotomy Agents in Vital Primary Molars), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of 3Mixtatin Versus MTA Used as Pulpotomy Agents in Vital Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: The study was performed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) polymer scaffold, 3Mixtatin, and formocresol for vital primary pulp therapy-a randomized clinical study. Materials and methods: A total of 120 primary molars were included from children aged between 6 and 8 years in this randomized clinical study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and were randomly allocated into three groups (group I-CHX polymer scaffold, group II-3Mixtatin, and group III-formocresol. Pulpotomy was performed in a vital cariously exposed primary tooth with healthy periodontium where their retention is more beneficial than extraction. Subjects were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months for clinical and radiographic evaluations. Results: At 6 months of follow-up, the overall success rate of pulpotomy in groups I, II, and III was 56.41, 71.05, and 60.52% in each group, respectively. Nonsignificant difference ( Conclusion: However, among the three materials used in this study, 3mixtatin comparatively had better results. How to cite this article: Goel N. Comparative Evaluation of Chlorhexidine Polymer Scaffold, 3Mixtatin, and Formocresol for Vital Primary Pulp Therapy: A Randomized 6-month Clinical Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023;16(3):478-482.
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.