Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) graft vs Calcium hydroxide (CH): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
- Population
- Mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis and carious pulp exposure (treated with full pulpotomy)
- Intervention
- Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) graft
- Comparison
- Calcium hydroxide (CH)
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
Platelet-rich fibrin and calcium hydroxide showed no significant difference in success (ungraded; effect size not reported).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH) Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis and carious pulp exposure (treated with full pulpotomy) · >=12 months Platelet-rich fibrin and calcium hydroxide showed no significant difference in success (ungraded; effect size not reported). Efficacy of pulpotomy for permanent teeth with carious pulp exposure: A systematic review and meta-analysis… (2024) All outcomes | OR 1.67 [0.59, 4.72] | 2 studies · 70 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of pulpotomy for permanent teeth with carious pulp exposure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. 2024 All outcomes | 2023-08-31 | 25 | Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) graft vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in immature permanent teeth undergoing pulpotomy · 1 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.