Partial pulpotomy with permanent restoration after 7-14 days 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 permanent restoration after 7-14 days
- Comparison
- No comparator
- Outcome
- Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)
Permanent restoration after 7-14 days was associated with a pooled success rate of 73.6%.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Partial pulpotomy with permanent restoration after 7-14 days vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Permanent restoration after 7-14 days Permanent restoration after 7-14 days was associated with a pooled success rate of 73.6%. Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) All outcomes | Success rate (%) 73.6 [66.5, 80.7] | 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 |
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.
- Randomized Clinical Trials on Deep Carious Lesions: 5-Year Follow-up · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Treatment of deep caries lesions in adults: randomized clinical trials comparing stepwise vs. direct complete excavation, and direct pulp… · 2010 · included by 1 of these 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.