ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Clinical and radiographic success of lesion sterilization and tissue repair in primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07773805 (Assessment of the Clinical and Radiographic Success of Calcium Hydroxide Iodoform Paste Versus Modified Triple Antibiotic Paste for the Treatment of Necrotic Primary Molars Using LSTR Technique), which is not on this 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.
Assessment of the Clinical and Radiographic Success of Calcium Hydroxide Iodoform Paste Versus Modified Triple Antibiotic Paste for the Treatment of Necrotic Primary Molars Using LSTR Technique: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early Dental Manifestations and Multidisciplinary Management of X-Linked Hypophosphatemic Rickets in a Pediatric Patient: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Research evaluating the clinical and radiographic outcomes of lesion sterilization and tissue repair (LSTR), particularly in terms of mobility, pain, sinus tract, fistula, swelling, root resorption, and interradicular radiolucency is yet to be conducted. This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical and radiographic success of LSTR using three antibacterial drug combinations-"three Mix" (3MIX)-and compare their success rates with those of conventional pulpectomy and pulpotomy in treating primary teeth. Additionally, the review sought to determine which antibiotic combination is most effective in LSTR in primary teeth. A comprehensive search strategy was applied across three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and King Abdulaziz Digital Library. Two independent reviewers screened 536 titles and 70 abstracts, ultimately selecting 14 articles based on the predefined inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at 6, 12, and 18-month follow-up intervals. The Cochrane's risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of randomized trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized trials. A total of 14 clinical studies were included in the review. Only two studies compared LSTR to MTA pulpotomy. The composition of 3MIX and other antibacterial mixtures used in LSTR varied significantly, though consistent clinical and radiographic success was observed across the studies. All studies demonstrated relatively high success rates for 3MIX antibiotic paste, both clinically and radiographically. No significant differences were found between the success rates of 3MIX, Vitapex, zinc oxide eugenol, and other 3MIX combinations in pulpectomy of primary teeth. At the 12-month follow-up, the meta-analysis found no significant difference in clinical and radiographic success rates between 3MIX and conventional pulpotomy and pulpectomy. 3MIX may be effective for primary teeth pulpectomy, especially when conventional pulpectomy treatments are not suitable in young, uncooperative children.
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.