Turmeric Gel as alternative Non-Vital Pulpotomy medicament in Primary teeth- A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Formocresol is a gold standard medicament in both vital and non-vital Pulpotomies due to its potent antibacterial potential but, it has a controversial nature due to its side effects. Therefore, the demand for natural alternatives of Formocresol as a pulp dressing material, with few or no side effects, became imperative. The purpose of the study was to introduce Turmeric gel as non-vital Pulpotomy medicament in primary teeth by evaluating its antibacterial effect against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Method: It was a multi-arm parallel Randomized Controlled Trial in which sixty patients aged between 4 to 8 years, each containing at-least one non-vital primary molar, were selected and randomly divided into Group A (Formocresol) and Group B (Turmeric gel). Non-vital Pulpotomy was performed by removing the coronal necrotic pulp. Sterile paper points were dipped in the root canals and taken to the laboratory. Cotton pellets soaked in the respective medicaments were placed over the root canal orifices and filled temporarily. Patients were recalled after one week. Samples were again taken, and tooth restored. Comparison between bacterial count at baseline and after one week of treatment was made and expressed as Colony-Forming Units/ml (CFU/ml). Results: There was a significant reduction in median Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus bacterial count in each group after one week of treatment (p < 0.001). Formocresol showed higher average reduction than Turmeric gel. However, statistically, the difference was insignificant indicating that both the medicaments possessed comparable antibacterial effect. Conclusion: Turmeric gel was found as effective alternative to Formocresol. Randomized Controlled Trial registration number in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05801354
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".