Primary study · included by 2 reviews
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of indirect pulp capping with three different materials: a 2-year follow-up study.
Gurcan 2019 · Gurcan A T, Seymen F · European journal of paediatric dentistry · 2019
Included by
The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall clinical and radiographic success TheraCal LC (resin-modified calcium silicate) for indirect pulp capping vs Non-resin calcium silicate materials (MTA ProRoot, MTA Angelus, Biodentine) · >=360 days | RR 0.94 [0.86, 1.03] | 2 studies · 153 participants | Low |
Overall clinical and radiographic success TheraCal LC (resin-modified calcium silicate) in vital pulp therapy (ipc, dpc, pulpotomy) vs Non-resin calcium silicate materials (MTA ProRoot, MTA Angelus, Biodentine) · <360 days | RR 0.99 [0.96, 1.02] | 7 studies · 400 participants | Low |
Overall clinical and radiographic success TheraCal LC (resin-modified calcium silicate) for indirect pulp capping vs Non-resin calcium silicate materials (MTA ProRoot, MTA Angelus, Biodentine) · <360 days | RR 0.99 [0.95, 1.03] | 5 studies · 218 participants | Low |
Overall clinical and radiographic success TheraCal LC (resin-modified calcium silicate) in vital pulp therapy (ipc, dpc, pulpotomy) vs Non-resin calcium silicate materials (MTA ProRoot, MTA Angelus, Biodentine) · >=360 days | RR 0.95 [0.89, 1.01] | 5 studies · 355 participants | Low |
2 including reviews in total.