ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Biodentine and Bioceramic as Pulp Medicaments Following Laser and Conventional Pulpotomy in Primary Molars: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. 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
Aim: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic success of Biodentine and Bioceramic putty as pulp medicaments following diode laser-assisted and conventional pulpotomy in primary molars. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight primary molars in children aged 4-9 years were randomly assigned into four groups ( Results: All groups showed favorable clinical and radiographic success at 6 months. The laser-Bioceramic group demonstrated the highest overall success (83.2%), followed by laser-Biodentine (75%) and conventional Bioceramic (75%), whereas conventional Biodentine showed comparatively lower success (50%). Differences among groups were not statistically significant ( Conclusions: Both Biodentine and Bioceramic were effective pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars, with Bioceramic showing slightly better outcomes. Laser-assisted pulpotomy provided additional clinical benefits, particularly in enhancing hemostasis and healing, although the differences were not statistically significant.
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.