MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415749318 · doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.10.019

Effect of hemostatic agents on the outcome of pulpotomy in primary and permanent teeth: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4415749318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aakash Kumar, Monika Tandan, Mrinalini Mrinalini, Sucheta Jala, Anabathula Praharsha, Vishakha Kumar Mendiratta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryotherapySodium hypochloritePulpotomyHemostatic AgentHyperkalemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: The success of pulpotomy depends significantly on the choice of materials and techniques used, including hemostatic agents. Despite extensive research, there remains a lack of consensus on the most effective hemostatic agent for pulpotomy. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the efficacy of hemostatic agents on the outcome of pulpotomy. Methods: studies was evaluated by JBI critical appraisal tool and New Castle Ottawa scale for cohort study and retrospective studies and qualitative synthesis was evaluated using National Services Scotland guidelines Meta analysis could not be performed because of the heterogeneity of the studies. Results: A total of eight studies were included in this review. Five studies concluded that sodium hypochlorite was more effective as a hemostatic agent in both primary teeth and permanent teeth. Two studies found potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser treatment produced superior clinical and radiographic outcomes in permanent teeth. Another study showed better results with cryotherapy in the permanent teeth. Conclusion: Sodium hypochlorite demonstrated superior hemostatic potential in primary teeth, whereas in permanent teeth, potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser and cryotherapy yielded promising results in clinical and radiographic outcomes with no statistically significant results when compared to sodium hypochlorite.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueJournal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial ResearchSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207