Question · asked by 1 review
Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs Pulpectomy: Radiographic failure
- Population
- Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors
- Intervention
- Pulpotomy (full or partial)
- Comparison
- Pulpectomy
- Outcome
- Radiographic failure
No statistically significant difference in radiographic failure between pulpotomy and pulpectomy in the main analysis (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.42), with considerable heterogeneity (I2=76%; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Radiographic failure · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up (15-24 months), Pediatric dental clinics (Canada, USA, Iran; general or local anaesthesia) No statistically significant difference in radiographic failure between pulpotomy and pulpectomy in the main analysis (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.42), with considerable heterogeneity (I2=76%; ungraded). Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) All outcomes | RR 0.79 [0.25, 2.42] | 3 studies · 338 participants | GRADE not reported |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Radiographic failure · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up (18-23 months), Pediatric dental clinics (Canada, USA, Iran; general or local anaesthesia), Sensitivity analysis excluding Aminabadi et al. (outlier) Excluding one outlying trial, pulpectomy had a significantly higher risk of radiographic failure than pulpotomy (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.83; ungraded). Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) All outcomes | RR 0.45 [0.25, 0.83] | 2 studies · 246 participants | 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.