ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Comparative Clinical and Radiographic Success Rate of Bioceramic Premix vs Biosilicate-based Medicament as Indirect Pulp Treatment Materials in Primary Molars: A Double-blind Randomized Trial with a Follow-up of 12 Months.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival of indirect pulp capping in deeply carious primary molars under local versus general anesthesia: a retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of NeoPUTTY and mineral trioxide aggregate for full pulpotomy in mature permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical study.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and Bioceramic Putty for Indirect Pulp Capping in Primary Molars: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
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
Aim: To evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic success of NeoPUTTY® and Biodentine™ as indirect pulp treatment (IPT) materials in primary molars. Materials and methods: This clinical trial was conducted on children aged 5-9 years. Class I carious lesions in primary molars indicated for IPT were divided into two groups-group I, NeoPUTTY®, and group II, Biodentine™. IPC was performed as per the standard protocols. The treated teeth were evaluated for clinical and radiographic success, along with the presence of a dentinal bridge at 6 and 12 months, by three blind examiners independently. All the data were tabulated, and statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney Results: Interexaminer reliability was analyzed using Fleiss κ statistics, and it showed "good" agreement. Clinical success was 100% in both groups at 6- and 12-month follow-up, while radiographic success was also 100% at 6-month follow-up for both groups. However, at 12-month follow-up, it was 93.33% for group I and 100% for group II. The difference was statistically nonsignificant. The presence of a dentinal bridge at 12-month follow-up was seen in 86.66% of cases in group I and 100% of cases in group II, but there was no statistical difference observed between them with a Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, we conclude that NeoPUTTY® and Biodentine™ are equally effective as IPT agents in primary teeth. How to cite this article: Kothari P, Mathur A, Tirupathi S,
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.