ArticleBMC oral health2026
Assessment of sealing ability, antibacterial effect and marginal adaptation of bioactive materials in pulpotomized primary molars: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
backgroundThe success of pulpotomy depends on the restorative material’s ability to provide an effective seal, preventing bacterial penetration and growth within the root canal. This study was performed to compare three different types of calcium silicate-based cement in pulpotomized extracted primary molars considering antibacterial effect, sealing ability and marginal adaptation. MATERIALS AND
methodsRecently extracted second primary molars were randomly categorized into three experimental groups (n = 10 each). Pulpotomy cavity preparations were made and pulp dressing materials were placed as follows: MTA (group I), Biodentine (group II) and NeoPUTTY (group III). All teeth were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis and incubated for 21 days. One half of each molar was stained with the LIVE/DEAD BacLight Bacterial Viability Kit and evaluated using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) for observing live and dead bacteria based on fluorescence. The other half of each molar was used to measure the gap between pulp dressing material and the dentine walls using high-resolution Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (EESEM).
resultsThe tested bioactive materials significantly influenced the total bacterial count, with MTA showing the highest bacterial leakage when compared to both Biodentine and NeoPUTTY (p = 0.008, p = 0.012), respectively. The mean live bacterial load in the MTA group was significantly higher than in the Biodentine and NeoPUTTY groups (p < 0.0001). Microgap width of interfaces between MTA and dentine (9.88 ± 4.12) was significantly larger in comparison to NeoPUTTY and (7.44 ± 1.46) (p = 0.006), however the difference was non-significant compared to Biodentine (8.84 ± 3.99) (p = 0.356).
conclusionsAll the tested bioactive materials effectively inhibit the growth of bacteria. Biodentine and NeoPUTTY are promising and show favorable results for use as coronal pulpotomy dressing material owing to superior antibacterial activity, sealing, and marginal adaptation relative to MTA.
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.