Question · asked by 1 review
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
- Population
- Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing pulpotomy
- Intervention
- Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement
- Comparison
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
MTA and CEM performed comparably for clinical and radiographic success (2 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Clinical and radiographic success (composite) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing 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 MTA and CEM performed comparably for clinical and radiographic success (2 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded). Comparative efficacy of materials used in patients undergoing pulpotomy or direct pulp capping in carious… (2023) All outcomes | CEM vs MTA was investigated in 2 RCTs (Asgary 2017; Nosrat 2013) for the primary outcome; not pooled owing to heterogeneity. The per-trial forest plots (Figure 8) indicated MTA performed comparably to CEM. Weak evidence. | 2 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.