Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

12 questions · 12 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 10 · 83.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 16.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

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 calcium hydroxide (CH); 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 0.11 [0.01, 1.94]
1 study · 40 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs ZOE + calcium hydroxide + iodoform (MPRCF, unnamed product)

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

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) led to higher radiological failure compared with ZOE + calcium hydroxide + iodoform (MPRCF, unnamed product); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 42.63 [2.65, 685.54]
1 study · 109 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

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 calcium hydroxide (CH); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 0.11 [0.01, 1.94]
1 study · 40 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide)

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 sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide); 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 0.20 [0.01, 3.92]
1 study · 40 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs ZOE + calcium hydroxide + iodoform (MPRCF, unnamed product)

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

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) led to higher clinical failure compared with ZOE + calcium hydroxide + iodoform (MPRCF, unnamed product); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 21.79 [1.32, 360.78]
1 study · 109 participants
GRADE not reported

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide)

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 sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 0.20 [0.01, 3.92]
1 study · 40 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

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

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

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

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

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