ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Decision-ready evidence for vital pulp therapy: a network meta-analysis of bioactive materials in mature permanent teeth.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This network meta-analysis aimed to generate clinically credible, decision-ready evidence on the comparative effectiveness of bioactive materials used in vital pulp therapy (VPT) of mature permanent teeth with carious exposures, including symptomatic presentations. Materials and methods: Following PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-NMA standards (PROSPERO: CRD420251074110), randomized controlled trials evaluating full pulpotomy (FP), partial pulpotomy (PP), direct pulp capping (DPC), and indirect pulp capping (IPC) were systematically identified across six databases. The primary outcome was composite success (clinical and radiographic) at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Arm-based Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses and frequentist sensitivity models (REML-Hartung-Knapp) were performed. Certainty of evidence was graded using CINeMA. Results: The primary meta-analysis included a total of thirty-five RCTs with a total of 2906 teeth, of which a total of twenty-four RCTs involving mature/ permanent teeth were included. Success rates across all VPT types and time points of the 24 RCTs were generally comparable at >93%. Hydraulic calcium silicate materials (MTA & Biodentine) showed a greater likelihood of success than Ca(OH)2 in direct pulp caps and partial pulpotomy procedures. The difference was established with high-certainty evidence for the comparison of MTA vs. Ca(OH)2 and moderate-certainty evidence for the comparison of Biodentine vs. Ca(OH)2. In contrast, the comparisons of calcium silicate materials were frequently overlapped in their credible intervals with moderate certainty evidence; thus, no explicit difference was found between the calcium silicate materials (e.g., MTA & Biodentine). If adjunctive therapies (e.g., platelet-rich plasma & laser therapies) have a promising effect on success rates, they were supported with low-certainty evidence based on limited data and network sparsity. The meta-analysis met the requirement for network coherence ( Conclusion: Vital pulp therapy in mature permanent teeth demonstrates consistently high success rates, particularly when using calcium silicate-based materials. These findings are supported by high-certainty evidence for comparisons with calcium hydroxide. However, differences among calcium silicate materials remain uncertain due to overlapping credible intervals and moderate certainty of evidence, while adjunctive therapies are supported by low-certainty evidence and should be interpreted cautiously. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251074110, PROSPERO CRD420251074110.
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.