SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Chitosan pulpotomy medicaments versus conventional agents in primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVital pulpotomy is routinely performed to maintain radicular pulp vitality in carious primary molars, yet the long‑standing use of formocresol persists despite concerns about potential cytotoxic, mutagenic, and systemic effects. Chitosan, a naturally derived polysaccharide with antibacterial, hemostatic, and regenerative properties, has been proposed as a more biocompatible pulpotomy medicament.
objectiveTo evaluate the radiographic and clinical results of conventional and chitosan-based pulpotomy medicaments (formocresol, ferric sulfate) in primary molars, based exclusively on randomized controlled trials.
methodsFrom database inception to January 15, 2026, a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Cochrane RoB 2 was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and GRADE was used to score the certainty of the evidence. Mantel-Haenszel random-effect model was used to aggregate six-month clinical and radiographic success as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsFour parallel‑group trials from India, involving 196 primary molars in children aged 4-9 years, met the inclusion criteria. Six‑month clinical success was identical for chitosan and conventional agents (83/86, 96.5% vs. 83/86, 96.5%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.06; I² = 0%), and radiographic success was likewise comparable (76/85, 89.4% vs. 73/85, 85.9%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.16; I² = 0%).
conclusionsChitosan‑based pulpotomy medicaments provide short‑term clinical and radiographic success rates comparable to formocresol and ferric sulfate and represent a biologically favorable alternative for pulpotomy in primary molars. Multicenter RCTs with 12-24‑month follow‑up and contemporary comparators are needed to clarify chitosan's role in pediatric pulp therapy guidelines.
trial registrationThe study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD420251151362) on September 19, 2025.
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.