ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of Different Traditional and Bioactive Indirect Pulp Lining Materials on Post-Operative Dentin Hypersensitivity: An In Vivo Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Aim The aim of the study was to compare different traditional and bioactive indirect pulp lining materials on post-operative dentin hypersensitivity (POH). Materials and methods A total of 72 patients were selected for this study based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were divided into four main groups, 18 patients each, according to pulp lining material placed (calcium hydroxide, TheraCal LC, universal bonding, or bioactive bonding according to manufacturers' instructions) and then subdivided into two subgroups according to restorative material used (resin composite or glass ionomer). Patients were evaluated clinically for POH and radiographically for the presence of any preapical lesion at different time periods: immediately after the procedure, at one week, at one month, at three months, and at six months. A verbal analog scale was used for pain during the POH assessment. The response of the patient verbally was recorded for pain scoring and graded from 0 to 4, where 0 means no pain and 4 means intensifying or unbearable pain. The data were calculated, and data analysis was performed using a multiple-way ANOVA test, where p-values of ≤0.05 were considered significant. Results There was no significant difference between resin composite and glass ionomer restorations in all groups at different time periods. Calcium hydroxide and universal bond restored with resin composite recorded the highest scores of POH at three and six months than other groups. No preapical lesions were observed in all groups at different time periods. Conclusions It can be concluded that using different materials as indirect pulp lining in deep cavities may promote POH. TheraCal LC and bioactive adhesives are considered promising materials for Indirect pulp lining in deep cavities. Clinical recommendation Follow-up of patients should be undertaken to recognize any pain that may develop after indirect pulp capping, determine its cause, and treat it early.
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.