Question · asked by 1 review

Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs Pulpectomy: Pathological periapical radiolucency

Population
Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors
Intervention
Pulpotomy (full or partial)
Comparison
Pulpectomy
Outcome
Pathological periapical radiolucency

Two trials reported periapical radiolucency but results were not pooled owing to considerable heterogeneity.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy
Pathological periapical radiolucency · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up, Pediatric dental clinics (Canada, USA, Iran; general or local anaesthesia)
Two trials reported periapical radiolucency but results were not pooled owing to considerable heterogeneity.
Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) All outcomes
The results of two trials showed considerable statistical heterogeneity so no meta-analysis was performed for this outcome.2 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
2018 All outcomes
March 2018 (databases searched to 1 March 2018)4Critically Low / Critically Low
How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.