ArticleBMC oral health2024
A retrospective study on the outcome of pulpotomy with iRoot BP plus in primary molars and its relationship with hemostasis time.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of iRoot BP Plus and mineral trioxide aggregate for pulpotomy in primary molars with reversible pulpitis under intraoral endoscope: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Tissue Biocompatibility and Antimicrobial Properties of Sympathomimetic Nasal Solutions for Potential Use in Dental Pulpal Management.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulpotomy is a crucial method to preserve primary teeth until natural exfoliation. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of pulpotomy with iRoot BP Plus in primary molars and to explore the association between hemostasis time and these outcomes.
methodsPrimary molars that underwent iRoot BP Plus pulpotomy and were followed for at least 12 months were selected for this study. Clinical and radiographic data were collected, and the success rate was analyzed in relation to factors such as hemostasis time, tooth type, and arch type. The tests of significance used were the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or Kruskal-Wallis test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsA total of 183 teeth in 106 patients were included in the analysis. The follow-up period fell into a range of 1-3 years, with a mean of 1.6 years. The clinical and radiographic success rates were 96.7% and 92.9%, respectively. The earliest time to observe the radiographic failures was half a year after the treatment, and the latest time was two years after the treatment. Among all the teeth, 130 were recorded with hemostasis time before the application of iRoot BP Plus. Compared to teeth with a hemostasis time of 5 min or less, teeth with a hemostasis time exceeding 5 min showed no significant differences in clinical and radiographic success (P = 1.000 and 0.879). Additionally, neither arch nor teeth type showed a relationship with the pulpotomy success rate (P > 0.05).
conclusionsPulpotomy using iRoot BP Plus in primary molars achieved favorable results. The hemostasis time may not significantly impact the outcomes of pulpotomy using iRoot BP Plus in primary molars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.