Question · asked by 1 review

Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

Population
Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure
Intervention
Pulpotomy (full or partial)
Comparison
None (single-arm pooled success proportion)
Outcome
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

Among 6 observational studies, pooled pulpotomy success was 92.6 per 100 (95% CI 0.86-0.96), very low certainty.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 25%Very low 3 · 75%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion)
Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis (symptomatic and asymptomatic) due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Clinical (endodontic/dental); multiple countries, Observational studies (GRADE evidence profile)
Among 6 observational studies, pooled pulpotomy success was 92.6 per 100 (95% CI 0.86-0.96), very low certainty.
Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes
Proportion 0.926 [0.86, 0.96]6 studies · 177 participantsVery low
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion)
Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis (symptomatic and asymptomatic) due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Clinical (endodontic/dental); multiple countries, Randomized trials (GRADE evidence profile)
Among 5 randomized trials, pooled pulpotomy success was 74.3 per 100 (95% CI 0.56-0.86), very low certainty.
Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes
Proportion 0.743 [0.56, 0.86]5 studies · 488 participantsVery low
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion)
Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis (symptomatic and asymptomatic) due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months, Clinical (endodontic/dental); multiple countries, Trim-and-fill adjusted for publication bias
Adjusting for publication bias (trim-and-fill), the pooled pulpotomy success estimate was 78.6% (95% CI 66-87%).
Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes
Proportion 0.786 [0.66, 0.87]15 (11 observed + 4 imputed) studiesGRADE not reported
Pulpotomy (partial or full) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion)
Clinical and radiographic success rate (>=6 months) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis (symptomatic and asymptomatic) due to carious pulp exposure · >=6 months (follow-up 6 to 73.6 months), Clinical (endodontic/dental); multiple countries
Pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis had a pooled success rate of 86% (95% CI 76-92%), graded very low certainty.
Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes
Proportion 0.86 [0.76, 0.92]11 studiesVery low

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
2022 All outcomes
January 2021 (articles from January 1960 to January 2021)11Low

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.

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.