Question · asked by 1 review
Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs Pulpectomy: Tooth survival
- Population
- Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors
- Intervention
- Pulpotomy (full or partial)
- Comparison
- Pulpectomy
- Outcome
- Tooth survival
Tooth survival was reported narratively in two trials and was not pooled.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Tooth survival · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · 18-24 months, Pediatric dental clinics (Canada, USA, Iran; general or local anaesthesia) Tooth survival was reported narratively in two trials and was not pooled. Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) All outcomes | Survival rate 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for pulpotomy and 0.97 for pulpectomy at 18 months (Nguyen et al.); 63% for pulpotomy and 85% for pulpectomy at 2 years (Casas et al.). Not pooled. | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 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) | 4 | Critically 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.