ArticleBMC oral health2025
Histological and radiographic assessment of the regenerative potential of sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) as a novel direct pulp capping material in an animal model.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the histological and radiographic effects of sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) as a direct pulp capping (DPC) agent in immature permanent dog premolars.
methodsA split-mouth design was employed with three healthy 4-month-old Mongrel dogs, each having 36 premolars. The premolars were randomly assigned to either SHMP or MTA. The specimens were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Masson's trichrome, and histologically examined three months after the animals were sacrificed. To assess root maturity, radiographic changes in root length (RL), root surface area (RSA), and apical foramen width (AFW) were measured at baseline and after 3 months. Quantitative data were analyzed using the paired-sample t-test, while the qualitative data based on Stanley's histological scoring system were tested using the Monte Carlo exact test. The level of significance was set at 5%.
resultsHistological findings showed no significant differences between the two groups, except for the average thickness of the predentin and odontoblastic layers, which was significantly higher in the SHMP specimens (P < 0.0001). The frequencies of fully calcified dentin bridges and regularly arranged dentinal tubules were significantly higher in the SHMP specimens (P < 0.05). Both materials showed comparable radiographic measurements (P > 0.05), except for the change in RL, which was significantly longer in the SHMP group (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThere were no significant differences between SHMP and MTA in some respects. Histological evaluation showed that SHMP provided better bioinductive and biocompatible properties compared to MTA. Radiographically, both materials showed comparable root maturogenesis outcomes, except for the significant increase in RL in the SHMP group. SHMP may be a suitable alternative material for DPC in the treatment of immature permanent teeth.
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.