Biodentine vs Calcium hydroxide (CH): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
- Population
- Vital permanent teeth (mature or immature) with deep or extremely deep caries and asymptomatic pulp or reversible pulpitis, undergoing direct pulp capping
- Intervention
- Biodentine
- Comparison
- Calcium hydroxide (CH)
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
Biodentine and calcium hydroxide did not differ significantly in clinical and radiographic success (OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 10.86; ungraded subgroup analysis).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Biodentine (BD) vs Calcium hydroxide (CaOH) Clinical and radiographic success · Vital permanent teeth (mature or immature) with deep or extremely deep caries and asymptomatic pulp or reversible… · >=12 months, Primary or secondary dental care Biodentine and calcium hydroxide did not differ significantly in clinical and radiographic success (OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 10.86; ungraded subgroup analysis). Effectiveness of calcium hydroxide compared to hydraulic calcium silicate cements for direct pulp capping in… (2025) All outcomes | OR 3.14 [0.91, 10.86] | 3 studies · 242 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness of calcium hydroxide compared to hydraulic calcium silicate cements for direct pulp capping in managing deep caries in vital… 2025 All outcomes | 2025-02-19 | 9 | High / Moderate |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Biodentine vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing DPC or pulpotomy · 1 review
- Biodentine vs Calcium hydroxide (CH) · Permanent teeth with 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.