ArticleBDJ open2025
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of silver diamine fluoride versus mineral trioxide aggregate as indirect pulp capping agents in deeply carious first permanent molars a randomized clinical trial.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Silver diamine fluoride for non-operative restorative treatment and prevention of dental caries.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2026Review
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
aimClinical and radiographic evaluation of SDF versus MTA as indirect pulp capping agents in deeply carious first permanent molars. METHODOLOGY: This study was conducted on (30) first permanent molars indicated for indirect pulp capping (IPC) randomly allocated to either SDF or MTA groups (n = 15). The molars were finally restored with glass hybrid glass ionomer restoration. Clinical assessment was conducted at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, while radiographic assessment was performed at 6 and 12 months using predetermined criteria. Data was statistically analyzed.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between both groups for all assessed clinical and radiographic parameters, including dentin bridge formation, at all follow-up periods. There was no evidence of clinical or radiographic failure in either group.
conclusionsSDF showed a high success rate compared to MTA and can be considered a promising alternative IPC agent in permanent molars.
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.