Question · asked by 1 review

Restricted partial pulpotomy (pulp removal 2-3 mm from exposure site only) vs Extended partial pulpotomy (pulp removal 2-3 mm from entire pulp chamber with complete deroofing): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

Population
Adults (18-45 y) with mature permanent molars, carious exposure and symptomatic irreversible pulpitis
Intervention
Restricted partial pulpotomy (pulp removal 2-3 mm from exposure site only)
Comparison
Extended partial pulpotomy (pulp removal 2-3 mm from entire pulp chamber with complete deroofing)
Outcome
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

Restricting the lateral extent of partial pulpotomy gives success equivalent to more extensive amputation (97.6% vs 97.5%, p>0.05; ungraded, single trial).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Restricted partial pulpotomy (pulp removal 2-3 mm from exposure site only) vs Extended partial pulpotomy (pulp removal 2-3 mm from entire pulp chamber with complete deroofing)
Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults (18-45 y) with mature permanent molars, carious exposure and symptomatic irreversible pulpitis · 1 year, Dental/endodontic clinical practice, Lateral extent of pulp amputation
Restricting the lateral extent of partial pulpotomy gives success equivalent to more extensive amputation (97.6% vs 97.5%, p>0.05; ungraded, single trial).
Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) All outcomes
Success rate (%) 97.6 vs 97.51 study · 96 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
2025 All outcomes
September 202511Low / 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.

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.