Comparative Evaluation of Turmeric Extract Versus Formocresol as Pulpotomy Agents In Primary Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Background and Objective:</strong><a name="_Toc86919697"></a><a name="_Toc86920816"></a><a name="_Toc86921073"></a><a name="_Toc86736264"></a>&nbsp; Formocresol is a commonly used pulpotomy agent for primary teeth but concerns about its safety and efficacy have prompted the exploration of alternative treatments. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of turmeric extract and Formocresol as pulpotomy agents in primary molars, with the goal of identifying a potentially more effective and safer herbal alternative.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>This experimental study comprised 54 asymptomatic carious primary molar teeth, divided into three groups according to time of extraction of teeth: one week, two weeks and six months. Each time-point group contained 18 teeth, which were further subdivided into two subgroups of 9 teeth each, based on the pulpotomy agent used: Formocresol or turmeric extract. Teeth were evaluated histologically post-extraction to assess the level of inflammation and dentine bridge formation. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test in statistical software.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> Teeth treated with Formocresol showed a higher degree of inflammation compared to turmeric extract over time (p-value =0.005). Additionally, dentine formation was observed in 25-50% of teeth treated with turmeric extract after six months as compared to no bridge formation in teeth treated with Formocresol.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong>: Turmeric extract has potent anti- inflammatory and regenerative effects on the dentine in primary molars compared to Formocresol. Being biocompatible agent, it may be used as an alternative for pulpotomy in primary teeth.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".