Sodium Hypochlorite Pulpotomy in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy in primary teeth with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) compared with other materials such as formocresol, ferric sulfate, MTA, saline solution, and diode laser. Material and Methods: Clinical trials and cohort studies were included. Seven electronic databases and gray literature were searched by November 2023 without restrictions of language, year of publication, or sample size. For quality assessment, Rob-2, ROBINS-I, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used. Network meta-analyses were conducted. Direct-comparison heterogeneity was assessed with I2. Indirect-comparison heterogeneity was also evaluated. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results: Sixteen studies were eligible and 13 studies were included in the network meta-analyses. There was no significant difference between pulpotomy with NaOCl and pulpotomy with formocresol, ferric sulfate, MTA, saline solution, and diode laser in clinical and radiographic outcomes at 6, 12, and 18 months. For most direct comparisons, I2 = 0%. Indirect-comparison heterogeneity ranged from low to considerable. Most clinical trials had moderate or high risk of bias. Cohort studies had low risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was very low. Conclusion: There is no difference between NaOCl and other materials. The certainty of evidence is very low.
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 | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".