Question · asked by 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

Population
Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged 6-14 years
Intervention
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing
Comparison
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM)
Outcome
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

A single RCT found no difference in pulpotomy success between MTA and calcium-enriched mixture (both 100% at 6 and 12 months; not pooled; ungraded).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement
Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 6 and 12 months, Pediatric dental clinic (Iran)
A single RCT found no difference in pulpotomy success between MTA and calcium-enriched mixture (both 100% at 6 and 12 months; not pooled; ungraded).
Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) All outcomes
Single RCT (Nosrat 2012, 118 roots): 100% clinical and radiographic success in both MTA and CEM at 6 and 12 months (MTA 53/53 then 54/54 roots; CEM 55/55 then 57/57 roots); no statistical difference between groups at…1 study · 118 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
2019 All outcomes
Inception to October 20185Critically Low / Critically Low

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

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

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.