Question · asked by 1 review
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA): Dentin bridge formation
- Population
- Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing partial pulpotomy
- Intervention
- Calcium hydroxide (CH)
- Comparison
- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
- Outcome
- Dentin bridge formation
Evidence on dentin bridge formation for calcium hydroxide versus MTA is weak and imprecise, with no material shown superior (4 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Dentin bridge formation · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing partial 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 dentin bridge formation for calcium hydroxide versus MTA is weak and imprecise, with no material shown superior (4 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded). Comparative efficacy of materials used in patients undergoing pulpotomy or direct pulp capping in carious… (2023) All outcomes | Four RCTs compared CH with MTA for dentin bridge formation (all used partial pulpotomy; all at low risk of bias except Qudeimat 2007). Apart from Wei 2010, trials yielded implausibly large ORs with very wide 95% CIs;… | 4 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.