ReviewJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Comparative evaluation of calcium-enriched mixture and mineral trioxide aggregate in vital pulp therapy of molars: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of cytotoxicity, setting time, and mineralization potential of mineral trioxide aggregate withJournal 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vital pulp therapy (VPT) promotes pulp healing and prevents bacterial contamination. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) improves outcomes but has drawbacks such as difficult handling, long setting time, discoloration, and cost. Calcium enriched mixture (CEM) cement, introduced as an alternative, offers easier handling, faster setting, and comparable biological properties. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of CEM versus MTA in VPT of primary and permanent molars. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (Registration Number: CRD420251030455). A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2005 and December 2024. Eligible studies compared CEM with MTA or calcium hydroxide in VPT. Of 522 studies screened, 8 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by postoperative pain (Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale), and radiographic outcomes by periapical index. Both CEM and MTA significantly reduced postoperative pain and showed high success rates in direct pulp capping, pulpotomy, and pulpectomy. No significant difference was observed between the two biomaterials. CEM and MTA both demonstrated favorable results in preserving pulp vitality and achieving long term success. While MTA remains widely used due to its proven biocompatibility, CEM offers comparable efficacy with advantages such as easier handling, faster setting, and reduced discoloration. Further long term multicenter RCTs are needed to establish standardized protocols.
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.