Partial pulpotomy (PP) with calcium hydroxide vs No comparator: Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
- Population
- Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure
- Intervention
- Partial pulpotomy (PP) with calcium hydroxide
- Comparison
- No comparator
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
Partial pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide had a pooled success rate of 34.3%.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Partial pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · At least 1 year, Calcium hydroxide Partial pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide had a pooled success rate of 34.3%. Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) All outcomes | Success rate (%) 34.3 [24.93, 43.67] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes | September 2025 | 11 | Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Partial pulpotomy (PP) with calcium hydroxide vs Direct pulp capping (DPC) with calcium hydroxide · Adults (>=18 y) with mature permanent teeth, carious exposure and normal/reversibly… · 1 review
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Partial Pulpotomy in Mature Permanent Teeth with Clinical Signs Indicative of Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
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.