Question · asked by 1 review
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA): Continued root formation / root development
- Population
- Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth (predominantly immature) undergoing DPC or pulpotomy
- Intervention
- Calcium hydroxide (CH)
- Comparison
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
- Outcome
- Continued root formation / root development
Evidence on continued root formation for calcium hydroxide versus MTA is weak and inconclusive (3 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Continued root formation / root development · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth (predominantly immature) undergoing DPC or pulpotomy · ≥6 months follow-up, Dental/endodontic clinical settings across multiple countries (university, hospital, specialist and general dental practice); permanent teeth with carious pulp exposure Evidence on continued root formation for calcium hydroxide versus MTA is weak and inconclusive (3 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded). Comparative efficacy of materials used in patients undergoing pulpotomy or direct pulp capping in carious… (2023) All outcomes | CH vs MTA was the only informative comparison for root development (3 RCTs); estimates had implausibly wide 95% CIs, all including no difference, and two trials gave contradictory results (Qudeimat 2007 favored CH, OR… | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative efficacy of materials used in patients undergoing pulpotomy or direct pulp capping in carious teeth: A systematic review and… 2023 All outcomes | 28 February 2021 (from inception to 28/2/2021) | 21 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.