ArticleBMC oral health2025
Penetration of Biodentine, NeoMTA 2, and NeoPUTTY into dentinal tubules in primary tooth pulpotomy: a confocal laser scanning microscopy analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of different internal bleaching methods after application of two bioceramic formulations in revascularization treatment: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessment of sealing ability, antibacterial effect and marginal adaptation of bioactive materials in pulpotomized primary molars: an in-vitro study.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
- Marginal Adaptability of Harvard MTA and Biodentine Used as Root-End Filling Material: A Comparative SEM Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of the diode laser and Biodentine on dentinal tubule occlusion.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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
backgroundPulpotomy is an accepted treatment option to preserve primary teeth with exposed pulp due to caries or trauma and to ensure proper function until physiologic exfoliation. This study aimed to assess the dentin penetration of NeoMTA 2, NeoPUTTY, and Biodentine using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).
methodsThe present study was performed using 42 freshly extracted lower primary molars. All samples were divided into 3 separate groups and the Biodentine, NeoMTA 2, and NeoPUTTY were placed on the cavity floor, respectively. High-speed diamond discs were used to create 2-mm-thick sections from the furcation region, including a 1- mm crown and 1-mm root. Primary molar tooth sections were placed on a glass slide and examined using a CLSM (LSM 980, Zeiss, Germany). All images were analyzed using ImageJ/Fiji (National Institute of Health, USA) software for the measurement of penetration depth. The penetration depth of the materials was evaluated using one- way ANOVA, and the Tukey test was used for comparisons between groups at p < 0.05 significance level.
resultsThere was no significant difference in penetration depth between the Biodentine and NeoMTA 2 materials. NeoPUTTY showed higher penetration depth than Biodentine and NeoMTA 2.
conclusionsThis study reported that NeoPUTTY showed higher dentinal tubule penetration in primary teeth than NeoMTA 2 and Biodentine as pulpotomy materials.
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.