Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Direct pulp capping versus partial pulpotomy using RetroMTA
Trial report 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronal pulpotomy (CP) has commonly been used after vital pulp exposure in deeply carious primary molars, although some concerns remain regarding unnecessary pulp removal and procedural morbidity. With the increasing use of calcium silicate cements (CSCs), more conservative vital pulp therapies, such as direct pulp capping (DPC) and partial pulpotomy (PP), have received growing attention. However, direct comparative clinical evidence between these approaches in primary molars is limited. Accordingly, this study sought to compare the cumulative survival probabilities of DPC and PP using RetroMTA
methodsThis university-based, assessor-blinded, parallel-group superiority randomized controlled trial enrolled children aged 3-9 years with at least one eligible primary molar. Eighty-eight molars were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DPC or PP. All treatments were performed by postgraduate dental students following a strict protocol under the supervision of a single instructor, and all molars were restored immediately with stainless steel crowns (SSC). Follow-up examinations were scheduled approximately every 6 months for up to 24 months. The primary outcome was the cumulative survival probability of pulp treatment, defined by the fulfilment of both clinical and radiographic success criteria. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare survival probabilities between groups.
resultsSeventy-eight molars were available for final analysis (40 DPC; 38 PP). Only two radiographic failures occurred in the DPC group, comprising pathological external root resorption at 7 months and furcation radiolucency associated with SSC dislodgement at 11 months. The cumulative survival probabilities were 93.8% for DPC and 100% for PP over the follow-up period (mean: 13.3 months; range: 6-23 months), with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.153).
conclusionsPP was not demonstrated to be superior to DPC using RetroMTA
trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry on 8 May 2024 under the registration number TCTR20240508001.
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.