ArticleBMC oral health2025
Histological investigation of the effects of chitosan and 3 different pulpotomy agents on rat dental pulps.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulpotomy is a vital pulp therapy performed following the removal of infected or affected coronal pulp. However, there is no consensus on the most effective pulpotomy agent. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of formocresol, ferric sulfate, Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS), and chitosan in pulpotomy treatment. Previous studies have suggested that chitosan is a promising pulpotomy agent. Our findings align with these results, yet further research is needed. We hope that this study will provide valuable data for future research and support the potential of chitosan in pulpotomy treatment.
methodsTwenty female Wistar rats (8 weeks old) were used, with a total of 80 teeth treated. The animals were randomly divided into four groups, and pulpotomy was performed using the designated agents. Histological evaluations were conducted at 2nd and 4th weeks posttreatment to assess calcified tissue formation, odontoblast layer thickness, and inflammatory cell density.
resultsOdontoblast layer formation was observed in all groups from the 2nd week. At the 4th week, the odontoblast layers in the former group were significantly thinner than those in the other groups. Intragroup comparisons revealed a progressive increase in odontoblast thickness, with a significant difference noted only in the chitosan group. At the 2nd week, odontoblast thickness was observed in all groups with no significant differences. By the 4th week, the formocresol group showed significantly lower odontoblast layer thickness compared to the others (p < 0.05). Only the chitosan group demonstrated a significant increase in odontoblast thickness between the 2nd and 4th weeks. Regarding calcified tissue formation, significant increases were found in all groups over time (p < 0.05). At the 2nd week, the chitosan group exhibited significantly lower calcified tissue thickness than the ferric sulfate and formocresol groups. At the 4th week, ferric sulfate showed significantly greater calcified tissue thickness compared to the ABS and chitosan groups (p < 0.05). In terms of inflammation, the chitosan group exhibited mild inflammation within an acceptable range. Comparisons indicated that inflammation levels were lower in the chitosan group than in the other groups.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that chitosan may be a promising alternative pulpotomy agent because of its favorable inflammatory response and odontoblast layer development. However, further studies are needed to confirm its clinical applicability.
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.