ArticleJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2026
Fracture Resistance of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate- and Biodentine-Pulpotomized teeth with Different Restorative Techniques: An in vitro Study.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 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
Background: Preserving the radicular pulp in traumatically or mechanically exposed teeth through coronal pulpotomy (CP) is an advantageous endodontic procedure. Purpose: This study compared the fracture resistance (FR) of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (BD) in pulpotomized maxillary premolars restored with different materials. Materials and Method: Ninety extracted maxillary premolars were divided into 9 groups (n=10). Group 1 served as intact controls. For the other groups, after access cavity preparation, half of the teeth were pulpotomized with MTA, and the others with BD. Groups 2 (MTA/unrestored) and 3 (BD/unrestored) remained unrestored. Restorations were as follows: Groups 4 (MTA/GI+Am) and 5 (BD/GI+Am) were restored with glass ionomer and amalgam; groups 6 (MTA/RMGI+ conventional com) and 7 (BD/RMGI+conventional com) with resin-modified glass-ionomer and conventional composite resin; groups 8 (MTA/bulk-fill com) and 9 (BD/bulk-fill com) with bulk-fill composite. After 24 hours, the FR test was conducted. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and the Tukey test ( Results: FR of control group was significantly higher than the all other groups ( Conclusion: Both composite resins increased the strength of MTA-pulpotomized premolars, but this was not the case for BD. FR of amalgam restorations did not significantly differ from both composite resin restorations. However, none of the tested restorations was capable to recover the fracture strength completely.
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.