Question · asked by 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

Population
Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth of mixed/unspecified root maturation
Intervention
Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Comparison
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Outcome
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

In mixed-maturation teeth, the effect of MTA versus calcium hydroxide on success is very uncertain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.17-7.11; very low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Clinical and radiographic success (composite) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth of mixed/unspecified root maturation · ≥6 months; follow-up range 1-2 years, Dental/endodontic clinical settings across multiple countries (university, hospital, specialist and general dental practice); permanent teeth with carious pulp exposure, Root maturation: mixed
In mixed-maturation teeth, the effect of MTA versus calcium hydroxide on success is very uncertain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.17-7.11; very low certainty).
Comparative efficacy of materials used in patients undergoing pulpotomy or direct pulp capping in carious… (2023) All outcomes
OR 1.11 [0.17, 7.11]3 studies · 257 participantsVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 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)21Critically Low / Critically Low

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.