ReviewCureus2025
Comparison of 3Mixtatin and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate in Primary Teeth Pulpotomy: A Systematic Review.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of primary teeth pulpotomy using 3Mixtatin compared to mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). A comprehensive literature search identified relevant studies, which were screened for inclusion, with the risk of bias assessed using Cochrane collaboration tools. Data on success rates, follow-up periods, and methodological quality were extracted, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024562155). Among the four analyzed studies, Jamali et al. reported 24-month clinical success rates of 90.5%, 88.1%, and 78.9% for 3Mixtatin, MTA, and formocresol, respectively. Chak et al. observed a 95.7% clinical success rate for 3Mixtatin over 12 months, with no data on MTA, while Mushtaq et al. found comparable success rates for both 3Mixtatin and MTA. Reddy et al. reported clinical and radiographic success rates of 91.7% and 81.7% for formocresol, 100% and 91.7% for MTA, and 95% and 85% for 3Mixtatin at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Radiographically, 3Mixtatin demonstrated slightly better short-term outcomes than MTA. These findings suggest that both 3Mixtatin and MTA are effective for pulpotomy in primary dentition, with 3Mixtatin offering potential advantages due to its antibiotic and statin properties that may enhance healing and antibacterial effects. Additional studies involving larger and more diverse populations are required to confirm these findings.
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.