These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Criteria for standardizing and increasing credibility of direct pulp capping studies.
    Author: Stanley HR.
    Journal: Am J Dent; 1998 Jan; 11 Spec No():S17-34. PubMed ID: 9760878.
    Abstract:
    There are many skeptics who condemn pulp capping but like to keep an eye on the research progress being made. Considerable literature emphasizes the negative aspects of vital pulp therapy and discourages its practice. Some clinicians and investigators continue to condemn pulp capping therapy for the same reasons reported in the literature 80 years ago despite the advances made in pulp biology. Clinicians are well aware of the immediate and long-term success rates after root canal therapy, but are less certain of the success of pulp capping. A number of nagging questions plague clinicians, when confronted with the choice of treatment. The research data on pulp capping is at times inadequate, confusing, misleading or even incorrect and diminishes the confidence of the practitioner in performing pulp capping.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]