MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411219515 · doi:10.4103/aam.aam_280_24

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Biodentine and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate as Indirect Pulp Capping Agents in Primary Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 18-month Follow-up

2025· article· en· W4411219515 on OpenAlexaff
Nidhi Chhabra, Anuj Chhabra, Ruchi Mehta, Sandeep Kumar Bains, Gurpreet Mauli

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of African Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineral trioxide aggregateMedicineDentistryMolarRandomized controlled trialRadiographyOrthodonticsPulp cappingPulp (tooth)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Indirect pulp treatment (IPT) is a vital pulp therapy procedure which helps to preserve the vitality of the pulp in teeth with deep carious lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of Biodentine versus mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) as indirect pulp capping materials in primary molars with reversible pulpitis. METHODS: A total of 68 children aged 4-9 years with bilateral carious primary molars, showing no signs of irreversible pulpitis, were selected. They were divided into two groups: Group I received Biodentine and Group II received MTA. IPT was performed, followed by the placement of stainless steel crowns. Patients were recalled at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months for clinical and radiographic assessments. RESULTS: Out of the initial 68 participants, 50 completed the 18-month follow-up, resulting in 100 treated primary molars analyzed. The IPT success rates were 96% (48 out of 50) for Biodentine and 94% (47 out of 50) for MTA. No statistically significant difference in success rates was observed between the two materials. CONCLUSION: Biodentine and MTA demonstrated similar clinical and radiographic success rates after 18 months of follow-up, indicating that both materials are effective for indirect pulp capping in primary molars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of African MedicineSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207