Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42652783
Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Calcium-Silicate-Based Materials in Primary-Tooth Pulpotomy: An Umbrella Review.
Ardila Carlos M, Vivares-Builes Anny M, Pineda-Vélez Eliana · Journal of clinical medicine · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/jcm15166379
Findings
Population Vital primary teeth (primary molars) undergoing pulpotomy
68 findings
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Nagendrababu et al. 2019 | RR 0.99 [0.96, 1.02] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.02] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Stringhini Junior et al. 2019 | RR 0.97 [0.92, 1.02] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic failure 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Shafaee et al. 2019 | Radiographic failure significantly higher with Biodentine than with MTA at 6 months (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Nagendrababu et al. 2019 | RR 1.02 [0.47, 2.21] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Nagendrababu et al. 2019 | RR 1.02 [0.91, 1.15] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical failure <3 to >=18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Shafaee et al. 2019 | Clinical failure did not differ substantially between Biodentine and MTA (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Stringhini Junior et al. 2019 | RR 0.99 [0.96, 1.02] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Pulp canal obliteration 6, 12 and >=18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | No significant differences between Biodentine and MTA at 6, 12 and >=18 months (no effect estimates given in the umbrella review) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Nagendrababu et al. 2019 | RR 1.0 [0.96, 1.05] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Stringhini Junior et al. 2019 | RR 0.98 [0.92, 1.05] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic failure 9-12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Shafaee et al. 2019 | Radiographic failure significantly higher with Biodentine than with MTA at 9-12 months (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Stringhini Junior et al. 2019 | RR 1.0 [0.91, 1.1] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Stringhini Junior et al. 2019 | RR 0.96 [0.92, 1.0] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 1.01 [0.97, 1.04] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Nagendrababu et al. 2019 | RR 1.0 [0.93, 1.08] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 1.0 [0.96, 1.03] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Nagendrababu et al. 2019 | RR 1.0 [0.97, 1.02] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 1.01 [0.94, 1.09] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Stringhini Junior et al. 2019 | RR 1.01 [0.97, 1.04] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 1.0 [0.98, 1.02] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Radiographic success 24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 1.01 [0.94, 1.08] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 0.99 [0.95, 1.04] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Root resorption 6, 12 and >=18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | No significant differences between Biodentine and MTA at 6, 12 and >=18 months (no effect estimates given in the umbrella review) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Clinical success 24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Lu et al. 2025 | RR 1.0 [0.94, 1.07] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Radiographic success 24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Silva et al. 2024 | No significant radiographic difference between MTA and Biodentine at 24 months (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Clinical success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Xavier et al. 2024; ProRoot MTA vs Biodentine, primary teeth | RR 0.994 [0.952, 1.037] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Clinical and radiographic success >=12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Beldar et al. 2025 | Comparative reporting of MTA vs Biodentine was not fully consistent within the review (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Radiographic success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Silva et al. 2024 | Radiographic success favored MTA at 12 months (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Clinical success 3-24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Albernaz Neves et al. 2025; MTA vs Biodentine within first- vs second-generation bioceramic analysis | Clinical RRs ranged from 0.98 to 1.01 across follow-up intervals; all comparisons non-significant GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Clinical success 2 years · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Xavier et al. 2024; ProRoot MTA vs Biodentine, primary teeth | RR 1.011 [0.966, 1.058] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Clinical success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | Broadly comparable outcomes across eight quantitative reviews through 24 months Low Downgraded: risk of bias Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Radiographic success 2 years · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Xavier et al. 2024; ProRoot MTA vs Biodentine, primary teeth | RR 1.007 [0.931, 1.089] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Radiographic success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Xavier et al. 2024; ProRoot MTA vs Biodentine, primary teeth | RR 1.002 [0.966, 1.04] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | Generally comparable; isolated findings favored MTA at selected follow-up intervals Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Clinical success 6-24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Silva et al. 2024 | No significant clinical difference between MTA and Biodentine at any evaluated interval (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Biodentine | Radiographic success 3-24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Albernaz Neves et al. 2025; MTA vs Biodentine within first- vs second-generation bioceramic analysis | Radiographic RRs ranged from 0.96 to 1.01 across follow-up intervals; all comparisons non-significant GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Clinical success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Firoozi et al. 2022; sensitivity analysis after influence analysis | RR 1.04 [0.98, 1.11] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Clinical success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Firoozi et al. 2022; primary analysis | RR 1.05 [1.003, 1.097] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Radiographic failure <3 to >=18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Shafaee et al. 2019 | No substantial radiographic failure difference (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Clinical success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | No consistent clinically relevant difference Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Clinical failure <3 to >=18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Shafaee et al. 2019 | No substantial clinical failure difference (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | Inconsistent across reviews Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Radiographic success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Firoozi et al. 2022 | RR 1.12 [1.02, 1.23] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Clinical success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Firoozi et al. 2022 | RR 1.03 [0.995, 1.062] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Formocresol | Radiographic success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Firoozi et al. 2022 | RR 1.14 [1.037, 1.25] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Ferric sulfate | Radiographic failure <3 to >=18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Shafaee et al. 2019 | No substantial radiographic failure difference (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Ferric sulfate | Clinical failure <3 to >=18 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Shafaee et al. 2019 | No substantial clinical failure difference (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Ferric sulfate | Radiographic success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Gopinath et al. 2022 | RR 0.99 [0.88, 1.11] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Ferric sulfate | Clinical success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Gopinath et al. 2022 | RR 1.0 [0.95, 1.05] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Biodentine | Ferric sulfate | Clinical and radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | No consistent significant difference Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Ferric sulfate | Clinical and radiographic success >=12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Beldar et al. 2025 | The review authors reported higher clinical and radiographic success with MTA than ferric sulfate (no estimates reproduced in the umbrella review; review rated critically low confidence) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Ferric sulfate | Clinical success 24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Gopinath et al. 2022 | RR 0.98 [0.15, 6.34] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Ferric sulfate | Radiographic success 24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Gopinath et al. 2022 | RR 0.74 [0.23, 2.43] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Ferric sulfate | Clinical and radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | Inconsistent review-level findings; no significant difference in one meta-analysis; whereas, another favored MTA Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency Studies not reported |
| Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement | Ferric sulfate | Radiographic success 6 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Gopinath et al. 2022 | RR 0.25 [0.03, 2.22] GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement | Ferric sulfate | Radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | No significant difference; sparse evidence Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Portland cement | Clinical and radiographic success 24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Silva et al. 2024 | No significant difference between MTA and Portland cement at 24 months (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Portland cement | Clinical and radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | No consistent significant difference Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | TheraCal | Clinical and radiographic success 12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Silva et al. 2024 | No significant difference between MTA and TheraCal at 12 months (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | TheraCal | Clinical and radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | No consistent significant difference Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision Studies not reported |
| First-generation bioceramics (MTA) | Second-generation bioceramics | Clinical and radiographic success Through 24 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Albernaz Neves et al. 2025 | No significant differences in clinical or radiographic success between first- and second-generation bioceramics through 24 months (no estimates given) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| First-generation bioceramics (MTA) | Second-generation bioceramics | Clinical and radiographic success Review-level; follow-up through 24 months · Umbrella review synthesis across systematic reviews · Umbrella review GRADE-informed rating across contributing systematic reviews | Broadly comparable outcomes Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Formocresol | Clinical and radiographic success >=12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Beldar et al. 2025 | The review authors reported higher clinical and radiographic success with MTA than formocresol (no estimates reproduced in the umbrella review; review rated critically low confidence) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | Calcium hydroxide | Clinical and radiographic success >=12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Beldar et al. 2025 | The review authors reported higher clinical and radiographic success with MTA than calcium hydroxide (no estimates reproduced in the umbrella review; review rated critically low confidence) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | CEM and other calcium-silicate cements | Clinical and radiographic success >=12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Beldar et al. 2025 | The review authors reported comparable success between MTA and CEM or other calcium-silicate cements (no estimates reproduced in the umbrella review; review rated critically low confidence) GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | None (single-arm pooled success) | Clinical success (pooled proportion) >=12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Beldar et al. 2025 | Pooled success proportion (%) 97.02 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) | None (single-arm pooled success) | Radiographic success (pooled proportion) >=12 months · Systematic-review level (umbrella review); estimate reproduced from an included meta-analysis, not re-pooled · Estimate reported by Beldar et al. 2025 | Pooled success proportion (%) 94.21 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
Included primary studies 11
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albernaz Neves 2025 Systematic review and meta analysis of first and second generation bioceramic materials in primary dentition pulpotomies. PMID:40374646 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Beldar 2025 Success of pulpotomy with MTA in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PMID:41393478 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bossu 2020 Different Pulp Dressing Materials for the Pulpotomy of Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of the Literature. PMID:32204501 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Firoozi 2022 Clinical and radiographic comparison of Biodentine and Formocresol: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. PMID:35596042 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Gopinath 2022 COMPARING THE CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC OUTCOMES OF PULPOTOMIES IN PRIMARY MOLARS USING BIOACTIVE ENDODONTIC MATERIALS AND FERRIC SULFATE… PMID:36494111 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Lu 2025 EFFICACY OF BIODENTINE VERSUS MINERAL TRIOXIDE AGGREGATE IN PULPOTOMY FOR PRIMARY TEETH: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF… PMID:41290279 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Nagendrababu 2019 Efficacy of Biodentine and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate in Primary Molar Pulpotomies-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial… PMID:30926099 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shafaee 2019 Comparison of the success rate of a bioactive dentin substitute with those of other root restoration materials in pulpotomy of primary… PMID:31202439 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Silva 2024 Success of Primary Teeth Pulpotomy Using Calcium Silicate Cements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. PMID:40036838 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Stringhini Junior 2019 MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. PMID:30238414 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Xavier 2024 Calcium Silicate-Based Cements in Restorative Dentistry: Vital Pulp Therapy Clinical, Radiographic, and Histological Outcomes on Deciduous… PMID:39274654 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Vital primary teeth or primary molars undergoing pulpotomy; mixed dentitions eligible only when primary-tooth findings reported separately | Vital primary molars undergoing pulpotomy (11 systematic reviews; 78 unique primary-study reports; 180 occurrences) |
| Intervention | Pulpotomy with calcium-silicate-based materials (MTA, Biodentine, NeoMTA and other bioactive calcium-silicate cements) | MTA, Biodentine, CEM, Portland cement, TheraCal, first- and second-generation bioceramics (11 reviews) |
| Comparison | Conventional pulpotomy medicaments (formocresol, ferric sulfate, calcium hydroxide) or other calcium-silicate-based materials | Formocresol, ferric sulfate, calcium hydroxide, other calcium-silicate materials |
| Outcomes | Clinical success and radiographic success (primary); treatment failure, adverse events, need for retreatment (additional) | Clinical success, radiographic success, clinical and radiographic failure, root resorption, pulp canal obliteration (10 reviews with quantitative synthesis; 1 descriptive) |
| Study designs | Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis of randomized or non-randomized human clinical intervention studies | 11 systematic reviews (10 with meta-analysis of RCTs or clinical trials; 1 descriptive synthesis) |
| Timing | Not specified | Follow-up 3 to 24 months |