Question · asked by 1 review
Partial pulpotomy with tri-calcium silicate material (MTA or Biodentine) 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 with tri-calcium silicate material (MTA or Biodentine)
- Comparison
- No comparator
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
Partial pulpotomy with MTA or Biodentine had a pooled success rate of 86.8%.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Partial pulpotomy with tri-calcium silicate material (MTA or Biodentine) 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, MTA or Biodentine Partial pulpotomy with MTA or Biodentine had a pooled success rate of 86.8%. Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) All outcomes | Success rate (%) 86.8 [83.78, 89.82] | 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 with tri-calcium silicate material (MTA or Biodentine) vs Partial pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · 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.