Efficacy of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Versus Biodentine as a Direct Pulp Capping Material in Carious Human Mature Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (BD) as direct pulp capping materials in cariously exposed mature permanent teeth, focusing on outcomes such as pulp vitality preservation, dentin bridge formation, and complication rates, including tooth discoloration. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and other dental databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023463513). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies reporting clinical and radiographic success. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Eleven studies involving 373 treated teeth were included. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled risk ratio (RR) for success of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-1.03), slightly favoring MTA but without statistical significance. BD showed a lower failure rate (RR = 1.94; 95% CI: 0.48-7.94) and marginally better outcomes in calcific bridge formation (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.75-1.08), though these differences were also not statistically significant. Biodentine demonstrated superior handling, a shorter setting time (about 12 minutes), and no risk of discoloration, which is an issue noted with MTA. Both materials are clinically effective, but BD may be preferable due to its practical and aesthetic advantages. Further long-term, standardized studies are recommended.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".