ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative antibacterial efficacy of MTA, amniotic membrane, and hyaluronic acid in pulp therapy for primary teeth.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulp therapy is a widely used treatment for cariously exposed asymptomatic primary teeth. Formocresol (FC) has traditionally been considered the standard treatment for pulpotomy, but its safety has raised concerns in recent years. Consequently, various alternative materials were explored and proposed.
aimThe purpose of this study is to compare the anti-bacterial effects of three pulp capping materials against Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus mutans, and Lactobacillus acidophilus.
methodsThe antibacterial effect of the three pulp capping materials was evaluated using the agar diffusion method, Group I; MTA, Group II: amniotic Membrane, Group III: hyaluronic acid against Streptococcus mutans, Enterococcus faecalis, and Lactobacillus acidophilus.
resultsA statistically significant difference was observed among the tested groups. MTA exhibited the largest inhibition zone (18.25 ± 1.71 mm) against E.faecalis, followed by the amniotic membrane (11.75 ± 3.86 mm), while hyaluronic acid showed no antibacterial activity.Similarly, a significant difference was observed in inhibition zones among the tested groups against Streptococcus mutans (p < 0.001), where MTA showed the highest inhibitory effect (13.50 ± 1.2 mm), followed by hyaluronic acid (12.00 ± 0.82 mm), whereas the amniotic membrane exhibited no antibacterial effect. Lactobacillus acidophilus was not affected by any of the tested materials in terms of antibacterial activity.
conclusionsMTA and the amniotic membrane demonstrated effectiveness against Enterococcus faecalis, while hyaluronic acid showed no antibacterial activity against this strain. Both MTA and HA exert antibacterial effects against Streptococcus mutans, whereas the amniotic membrane had no effect. The tested materials were ineffective against Lactobacillus acidophilus, which showed resistance. Overall, MTA displayed the strongest antibacterial effect among the tested groups.
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.