Trial reportScientific reports2024
Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molar pulpotomy using formocresol, portland cement, and NeoMTA plus: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Calcium-Silicate-Based Materials in Primary-Tooth Pulpotomy: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Shear Bond Strength of Biointeractive Restorative Materials to NeoMTA Plus and Biodentine.Polymers · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of Formocresol (FC), Portland Cement (PC), and NeoMTA Plus in primary molar pulpotomy. Ninety-six primary molars in ninety-six children aged 3‒9 years were randomly assigned to FC, PC, and NeoMTA Plus groups. Radiographic and clinical follow-up evaluations were performed at six and twelve months. After six and twelve months, clinical success rates were 100% in the three groups. The radiographic success rates in the 6-month follow-up were 96.7 and 96.7% in the FC and PC groups and 100% in the NeoMTA Plus group. At 12 months, radiographic success rate was 93.8, and 93.8% in the FC and PC groups and 96.9% in the NeoMTA Plus group. There were no significant differences between the three groups at all follow-up evaluations. NeoMTA Plus showed highest success rate, clinically and radiographically. PC and NeoMTA Plus can be considered as an alternative to FC.
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.