ReviewBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Comparative success of platelet-rich fibrin and mineral trioxide aggregate in direct pulp capping and pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can artificial intelligence training improve clinical decision-making during deep caries excavation?Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of dentin bridge formation and postoperative pain reduction after direct pulp capping using photobiomodulation therapy, platelet-rich fibrin, and mineral trioxide aggregate - A randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
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
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical success rates of Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) when used in pulp-capping and pulpotomy. Materials and methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science was performed. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials with a minimum 6-month follow-up were included. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: Nine studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis at 6 months (7 studies, 436 treated teeth) showed no significant difference between PRF and MTA (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.78; P= 0.4799). At 12 months (7 studies, 352 treated teeth), the results also indicated no statistically significant difference (OR 1.50, 95% CI: 0.93-2.43; P= 0.0962), though the point estimate favored PRF. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, PRF and MTA demonstrate broadly similar clinical success rates in pulp-capping and pulpotomy over 6 and 12 months. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for well-designed, larger randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up to more definitively establish their comparative long-term efficacy.
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.