ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Cost efficiency of calcium silicate and glass ionomer cements in pulpotomies of first mandibular primary molars.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Calcium silicate cements (CSCs) and glass ionomer cements (GICs) are widely used in pulpotomy procedures because of their favorable biocompatibility, adhesive properties, and mechanical performance. However, limited evidence is available regarding the economic implications of their clinical use. This study evaluated the cost efficiency of CSCs and GICs used in pulpotomies of mandibular primary first molars (MPFMs). Materials and Methods: An in vitro experimental study was conducted using 72 MPFMs with standardized Class I cavities. The teeth were randomly allocated into six groups (n=12), combining two CSCs (mineral trioxide aggregate [MTA Angelus®] and Biodentine®) and three GICs (Vitremer®, Fuji IX® and Ketac Molar®). The cements were assessed according to commercial costs (per kit, per gram, and per dose), treatment-related costs (gross cost: material placed; actual cost: material prepared), and material utilization efficiency, defined as the gross-to-actual cost ratio. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test (p<0.05). Results: Among the CSCs, Biodentine showed the highest actual cost, whereas MTA Angelus showed the highest gross cost and greater utilization efficiency. Among the GICs, Vitremer presented the highest gross and actual costs, while Fuji IX and Ketac Molar demonstrated the highest utilization efficiency. The highest actual cost was observed for the Biodentine + Vitremer combination (USD 25.0), and the lowest for MTA Angelus + Fuji IX (USD 18.6). The highest efficiency ratios were found for MTA Angelus combined with Ketac Molar (53.36%) and with Vitremer (41.89%), whereas the remaining combinations showed values ≤25.62% (p<0.001). Conclusions: Significant differences in cost efficiency were identified among the materials evaluated. Overall, MTA Angelus combined with Ketac Molar demonstrated the greatest cost efficiency for pulpotomy procedures. Optimization of material presentations and dose sizes may reduce material waste and overall treatment costs.
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.