Question · asked by 1 review
Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs Pulpectomy: Clinical failure
- Population
- Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors
- Intervention
- Pulpotomy (full or partial)
- Comparison
- Pulpectomy
- Outcome
- Clinical failure
Pulpotomy may not differ from pulpectomy for clinical failure; no GRADE rating was reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Clinical failure · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up: 18 to 24 months; 15 to 23 months in Howley et al., Dental clinics in Canada, the United States, and Iran, Overall Pulpotomy may not differ from pulpectomy for clinical failure; no GRADE rating was reported. Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) All outcomes | RR 2.63 [0.76, 9.58] | 2 studies · 264 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.