Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

81 questions · 91 findings · 6 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 2 · 2.2%GRADE not reported 62 · 68.1%Very low 6 · 6.6%Low 15 · 16.5%Moderate 6 · 6.6%High 0 · 0%

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Endoflas chlorophenol free (Endoflas-CF)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with endoflas chlorophenol free (Endoflas-CF); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
RR 1.33 [0.35, 5.03]
1 study · 32 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs RC Fill

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with RC Fill; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 2.00 [0.65, 6.15]
1 study · 86 participants
GRADE not reported

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
RR 2.02 [0.79, 5.15]
2 studies · 92 participants
GRADE not reported

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and propolis (ZOP)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with zinc oxide and propolis (ZOP); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 2.00 [0.20, 19.91]
1 study · 32 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.83 [0.80, 4.19]
1 study · 50 participants
GRADE not reported

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Endoflas chlorophenol free (Endoflas-CF)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with endoflas chlorophenol free (Endoflas-CF); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.00 [0.16, 6.25]
1 study · 32 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.00 [0.07, 15.12]
1 study · 50 participants
GRADE not reported

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.58]
2 studies · 92 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) may leads to higher clinical failure compared with zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 4.75 [1.21, 18.55]
4 studies · 161 participants
Low

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 0.71 [0.15, 3.33]
2 studies · 62 participants
Moderate

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) may leads to higher radiological failure compared with zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 6.56 [2.58, 16.67]
4 studies · 161 participants
Low

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs RC Fill (ZOE with iodoform)

Outcome not reported · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
Assessed pain, radiolucency, root resorption, filling material anomaly (Ramar 2010); no significant differences
1 study · 64 participants
GRADE not reported

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.00 [0.31, 3.27]
2 studies · 62 participants
Moderate

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and propolis (ZOP)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with zinc oxide and propolis (ZOP); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 0.80 [0.26, 2.45]
1 study · 32 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs RC Fill

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6, 12 and 30 months
No clinical failure in any participant at 6/12/30 months (Pramila 2016); not estimable
1 study · 86 participants
GRADE not reported

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.11 [0.46, 2.67]
1 study · 61 participants
GRADE not reported

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Full strength formocresol (FC)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with full strength formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months
RR 1.10 [0.17, 7.10]
1 study · 44 participants
GRADE not reported

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Full strength formocresol (FC)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with full strength formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months
RR 1.10 [0.31, 3.84]
1 study · 44 participants
GRADE not reported

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 2.90 [0.32, 26.38]
1 study · 61 participants
GRADE not reported

Partial pulpotomy (PP) with calcium hydroxide vs No comparator

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure

Partial pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide had a pooled success rate of 34.3%.

1 finding from 1 review

Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes
At least 1 year · Calcium hydroxide
Success rate (%) 34.3 [24.93, 43.67]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported