Clinical and radiographic success of lesion sterilization and tissue repair in primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research evaluating the clinical and radiographic outcomes of lesion sterilization and tissue repair (LSTR), particularly in terms of mobility, pain, sinus tract, fistula, swelling, root resorption, and interradicular radiolucency is yet to be conducted. This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical and radiographic success of LSTR using three antibacterial drug combinations-"three Mix" (3MIX)-and compare their success rates with those of conventional pulpectomy and pulpotomy in treating primary teeth. Additionally, the review sought to determine which antibiotic combination is most effective in LSTR in primary teeth. A comprehensive search strategy was applied across three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and King Abdulaziz Digital Library. Two independent reviewers screened 536 titles and 70 abstracts, ultimately selecting 14 articles based on the predefined inclusion criteria. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at 6, 12, and 18-month follow-up intervals. The Cochrane's risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of randomized trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized trials. A total of 14 clinical studies were included in the review. Only two studies compared LSTR to MTA pulpotomy. The composition of 3MIX and other antibacterial mixtures used in LSTR varied significantly, though consistent clinical and radiographic success was observed across the studies. All studies demonstrated relatively high success rates for 3MIX antibiotic paste, both clinically and radiographically. No significant differences were found between the success rates of 3MIX, Vitapex, zinc oxide eugenol, and other 3MIX combinations in pulpectomy of primary teeth. At the 12-month follow-up, the meta-analysis found no significant difference in clinical and radiographic success rates between 3MIX and conventional pulpotomy and pulpectomy. 3MIX may be effective for primary teeth pulpectomy, especially when conventional pulpectomy treatments are not suitable in young, uncooperative children.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".