ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of EndoSeal MTA Versus MTA in Primary Tooth Pulpotomy: A Randomized Clinical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic effects of EndoSeal mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and MTA for pulpotomy of primary teeth. Materials and Methods: This split-mouth randomized clinical trial evaluated 45 pairs of bilateral asymptomatic severely carious primary molars requiring pulpotomy in children between 3 and 8 years. The teeth in each patient were randomly assigned to two groups to undergo pulpotomy with MTA and EndoSeal MTA ( Results: Both groups demonstrated a 100% clinical success rate at 3 and 6 months. Radiographic success rates were 95.6% (3 months) and 93.3% (6 months) for the MTA group, and 93.3% (3 months) and 91.1% (6 months) for the EndoSeal MTA group. The difference in radiographic success was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, EndoSeal MTA demonstrated comparable clinical and radiographic success to MTA for pulpotomy of primary molars, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative material.
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.