ArticleCureus2026
The Outcome of Double Antibiotic, Triple Antibiotic, and Modified Triple Antibiotic Pastes as an Intracanal Medicament in Regenerative Endodontics: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background Antibiotic paste plays a vital role in the success of regenerative endodontics. Triple antibiotic paste (TAP) and double antibiotic paste (DAP) are commonly used as intracanal medicaments, with tooth discoloration being a main concern for TAP. Clindamycin is a broad-spectrum antibiotic and does not cause visible tooth discoloration. This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of regenerative endodontics using DAP, TAP, and modified triple antibiotic paste (mTAP) as intracanal medicaments. Methodology A total of 51 non-vital immature permanent teeth from 51 patients aged 12-25 years were included in this comparative study. The teeth were randomly allocated into the following three groups (n = 17) based on the intracanal medicament used: Group I: DAP was used as an intracanal medicament; Group II: TAP was used as an intracanal medicament; and Group III: mTAP, in which the minocycline of TAP was replaced by clindamycin, was used as an intracanal medicament. After completion of regenerative endodontic treatment, the teeth were followed clinically and radiographically at 12 and 24 months. The chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the outcome of regenerative endodontics among the three groups. Results At the 12-month follow-up, the success rates for regenerative endodontics were 87.50%, 88.24%, and 82.35% for the DAP, TAP, and mTAP groups, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.999). At the 24-month follow-up, the success rates for regenerative endodontics were 68.75%, 81.25%, and 73.33% for the DAP, TAP, and mTAP groups, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.775). Conclusions Regenerative endodontics using DAP, TAP, and mTAP as intracanal medicaments have high success rates with no statistically significant differences among the three. mTAP, in which the minocycline of TAP is replaced by clindamycin, can also be used as an intracanal medicament in regenerative endodontics.
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.