Question · asked by 1 review
Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
- Population
- Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure
- Intervention
- Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
- Comparison
- Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM)
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
MTA and CEM did not differ significantly in pulpotomy success (indirect comparison); ungraded.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Clinical (endodontic/dental), Pulp capping material: MTA vs CEM MTA and CEM did not differ significantly in pulpotomy success (indirect comparison); ungraded. Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes | MTA was not significantly superior to CEM (no significant difference; Supplementary Table S5, not available). | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022 All outcomes | January 2021 (articles from January 1960 to January 2021) | 11 | Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure · 1 review
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.