ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative evaluation of iRoot BP Plus and mineral trioxide aggregate for pulpotomy in primary molars with reversible pulpitis under intraoral endoscope: a retrospective 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulpotomy is now a recommended treatment for pulpitis in primary teeth with the advancement of dental biomaterials. However, there is deficient in clinical studies which evaluate the long-term prognosis of pulpotomy in primary teeth. Thus, the study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of iRoot BP Plus and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) for pulpotomy in primary molars with the aid of intraoral endoscope and to explore the influencing factors.
methodsThe teeth records with iRoot BP Plus and MTA were included. The gender, age, tooth position, clinical examination, radiographs, clinical procedures, coronal restoration and follow-up information were obtained. The outcomes were analyzed by Chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression (P < 0.05).
resultsThe study included 82 children with 157 teeth (113 in the iRoot BP Plus group and 44 in the MTA group). The treatment procedure and the follow-up were monitored with the assistance of intraoral endoscope. The average follow-up period was 1213 days for iRoot BP Plus and 1289 days for MTA. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 1-year cumulative survival rate of 100% for both groups. The 2-year cumulative survival rate was 98.2% for the iRoot BP Plus group and 100% for the MTA group. The 3-year cumulative survival rate was 97.3% for the iRoot BP Plus group and 97.7% for the MTA group, with no statistically significant difference. Cox proportional hazards model analysis revealed that factors including gender, age, tooth position, irrigation type, hemostasis time, and coronal restoration had no significant association with treatment success rates.
conclusionsiRoot BP Plus demonstrates clinical outcomes comparable to those of MTA in pulpotomy of primary molars. When coupled with accurate pulp diagnosis and an appropriate coronal restoration, both materials contribute to a favorable long-term prognosis. Furthermore, the intraoral endoscope plays a valuable role as an auxiliary tool for monitoring treatment quality.
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.