Question · asked by 1 review
Partial pulpotomy with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) hemostatic agent vs Partial pulpotomy without NaOCl / alternative hemostatic agent: Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
- Population
- Adults (>=18 y) with mature permanent teeth and deep carious pulp exposure
- Intervention
- Partial pulpotomy with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) hemostatic agent
- Comparison
- Partial pulpotomy without NaOCl / alternative hemostatic agent
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
Using NaOCl during partial pulpotomy is associated with borderline-higher success, independent of concentration (ungraded, exploratory).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Partial pulpotomy with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) hemostatic agent vs Partial pulpotomy without NaOCl / alternative hemostatic agent Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults (>=18 y) with mature permanent teeth and deep carious pulp exposure · >=1 year, Dental/endodontic clinical practice, Hemostatic agent (NaOCl use and concentration) Using NaOCl during partial pulpotomy is associated with borderline-higher success, independent of concentration (ungraded, exploratory). Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) All outcomes | Meta-regression across included studies: NaOCl concentration did not significantly affect success when a tri-calcium silicate capping material was used; the use of NaOCl itself showed borderline significance (higher… | 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 |
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.