Cochrane · intervention · CD003220
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth
Smaïl‐Faugeron, V, Glenny, AM, Courson, F, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
220
current version
GRADE rated
62
No studies
8
Included studies
87
as reported
No studies 8 · 3.6%Ungraded 150 · 68.2%Very low 29 · 13.2%Low 24 · 10.9%Moderate 9 · 4.1%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth | Children (median 68 randomised teeth per trial) with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth (n=7140 randomised teeth) |
| Intervention | All pulp interventions combining a pulp treatment technique (pulpotomy, pulpectomy or direct pulp capping) and a medicament or device (any type) | Mineral trioxide aggregate; Formocresol (full strength and diluted 1:5 and 1:25); Calcium hydroxide; Ferric sulphate; Biodentine; Zinc oxide and eugenol; Sodium hypochlorite; Diode laser; Er:YAG laser; Low-level laser therapy; Enamel matrix derivative; Ankaferd Blood Stopper; Portland cement; Calcium-enriched mixture; Buffered glutaraldehyde; Propolis; Aloe vera; Tempophore; Electrosurgery; Vitapex, Metapex, Endoflas, Sealapex (CH/iodoform pastes); 3Mix, 3Mixtatin, simvastatin (direct pulp capping); Dycal, DentoGen; ProRoot, Ortho and Retro MTA |
| Comparison | Alternative pulp treatment medicament or technique | Alternative medicament or technique within each pulp treatment approach |
| Outcomes | Primary: clinical failure and radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months. Secondary: overall failure; secondary clinical outcomes (pain, soft tissue pathology, pathological mobility, adjacent tissue inflammation, defective restoration, secondary caries, periodontal pocket, dental anxiety/phobia, premature tooth loss, signs of exfoliation, smell); secondary radiological outcomes (pathological radiolucency, pathological root resorption, pulp canal obliteration, dentine bridge formation, physiological root resorption, defective restoration, secondary caries, filling material anomaly) | Clinical failure (n=87 trials); Radiological failure (n=87 trials); Overall failure; plus secondary clinical and radiological outcomes |
| Study designs | Randomised controlled trials | RCT (n=87; all at unclear or high risk of bias) |
| Timing | Outcomes at six, 12 and 24 months | 6, 12 and 24 months (some trials to 30-48 months) |
Search date: 2017-08. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Web of Science; OpenGrey; ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO ICTRP
Questions and results
Current version onlyElectrosurgery vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 9 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 71.22] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 9 months | RR 5.00 [0.62, 40.64] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.33 [0.73, 2.42] | 6 studies · 394 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.38 [0.45, 4.27] | 6 studies · 394 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ferric sulphate (FS)/zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpotomy vs Sedanol (ZOE) pulpectomy
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.60 [0.25, 1.46] | 1 study · 291 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.41 [0.19, 0.89] 50 per 1000 vs 20.5 per 1000 | 12 studies · 740 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.31 [0.10, 0.93] 28 per 1000 vs 8.6 per 1000 | 12 studies · 740 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.87 [1.22, 2.89] 115 per 1000 vs 215 per 1000 | 6 studies · 332 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.86 [1.42, 2.44] 253 per 1000 vs 470.6 per 1000 | 6 studies · 332 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.16 [0.04, 0.70] 14 per 1000 vs 2.2 per 1000 | 4 studies · 150 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.12 [0.04, 0.36] 351 per 1000 vs 42.1 per 1000 | 4 studies · 150 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.52 [0.20, 1.39] | 3 studies · 130 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.58 [0.25, 1.36] | 3 studies · 130 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.28 [0.53, 3.13] | 2 studies · 122 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 3.41 [0.37, 31.61] | 2 studies · 122 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Calcium hydroxide/iodoform (CH/iodoform) vs Full strength formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 9.11 [3.04, 27.31] | 1 study · 67 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 9.11 [3.04, 27.31] | 1 study · 67 participants | Ungraded |
Diode laser + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Formocresol (FC) + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure mean 15.7 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Saltzman 2005); not estimable | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure mean 15.7 months | RR 4.00 [0.48, 33.42] | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.83 [0.29, 2.38] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 1.67 [0.71, 3.89] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.46 [0.24, 0.88] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.80 [0.23, 2.83] | 2 studies · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Erbium:YAG laser vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 2.13 [0.20, 22.70] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 1.06 [0.28, 4.01] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.10 [0.01, 0.72] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.20 [0.03, 1.59] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Portland cement (PC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 0.20 [0.01, 4.02] | 3 studies · 130 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.50 [0.10, 2.56] | 3 studies · 130 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 18 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Malekafzali 2011); not estimable | 1 study · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.04, 2.94] | 1 study · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR mean 22 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue pathology, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption, pulp canal obliteration (Doyle 2010); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; no significant differences | 1 study · 130 participants | Ungraded |
Erbium:YAG laser vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.31 [0.11, 0.90] | 1 study · 91 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.62 [0.11, 3.56] | 1 study · 91 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide/iodoform (CH/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.13 [0.82, 1.54] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.17 [0.87, 1.59] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.60 [0.26, 1.40] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 1.20 [0.42, 3.43] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Erbium:YAG laser vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 5.31 [0.26, 107.86] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.61 [0.19, 1.94] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.42 [0.17, 1.02] | 2 studies · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 4.39 [0.22, 87.82] | 2 studies · 110 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ferric sulphate (FS) + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR mean 22 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue, mobility, adjacent tissue inflammation, radiolucency, root resorption, pulp canal obliteration (Doyle 2010); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; no significant differences | 1 study · 135 participants | Ungraded |
Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.11 [0.46, 2.67] | 1 study · 61 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 2.90 [0.32, 26.38] | 1 study · 61 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 6.56 [2.58, 16.67] | 4 studies · 161 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 4.75 [1.21, 18.55] | 4 studies · 161 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 9.00 [0.52, 156.92] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 2.50 [0.50, 12.50] | 2 studies · 110 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 5.00 [0.26, 98.00] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 5.00 [0.26, 98.00] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.71 [0.15, 3.33] 97 per 1000 vs 68.9 per 1000 | 2 studies · 62 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.31, 3.27] 129 per 1000 vs 129 per 1000 | 2 studies · 62 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.26 [0.05, 1.50] 128 per 1000 vs 33.3 per 1000 | 2 studies · 80 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.26 [0.05, 1.50] 128 per 1000 vs 33.3 per 1000 | 2 studies · 80 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.83 [0.80, 4.19] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 15.12] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.20 [0.01, 3.92] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.20 [0.01, 3.92] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.11 [0.01, 1.94] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.11 [0.01, 1.94] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.50 [0.10, 2.43] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.50 [0.10, 2.43] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 2.02 [0.79, 5.15] | 2 studies · 92 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.58] | 2 studies · 92 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs RC Fill (ZOE with iodoform)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, radiolucency, root resorption, filling material anomaly (Ramar 2010); no significant differences | 1 study · 64 participants | Ungraded |
Formocresol (FC) pulpotomy vs Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Coser 2008 randomised 51 teeth; no data provided for any outcome | 0 studies | No studies |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 3.11 [1.61, 6.02] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 3.83 [1.68, 8.74] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure up to 24 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Tuna 2008); not estimable (direct pulp capping) | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure up to 24 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 and 12 months | Direct pulp capping; overall failure RR 1.00 (0.06 to 15.50) at 6/12 months (Garrocho-Rangel 2009); no pain/soft tissue/mobility/root resorption | 1 study · 90 participants | Ungraded |
Acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure up to 24 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Demir 2007); not estimable (direct pulp capping) | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure up to 24 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 6 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Demir 2007); not estimable | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 7.00 [0.38, 127.33] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure up to 24 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Demir 2007); not estimable | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 7.00 [0.38, 127.33] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 7.00 [0.38, 127.33] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 14.90] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 14.90] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.33 [0.04, 2.94] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.81] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.33 [0.04, 2.99] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Akcay 2014); not estimable | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.09 [0.01, 1.58] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) vs Calcium hydroxide + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Akcay 2014); not estimable | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.20 [0.02, 1.61] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Buffered glutaraldehyde
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption, pulp canal obliteration (Goyal 2016); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; pain, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption significantly favour MTA | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Diode laser
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption, premature tooth loss (Niranjani 2015); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; no significant differences (RR 0.33, 0.01 to 7.72) | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Low-level diode laser vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall failure 12 months | RR 4.00 [0.49, 32.72] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Enamel matrix derivative (EMD)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.29 [0.06, 1.28] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 0.14 [0.01, 2.67] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Biodentine vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 2.40 [0.65, 8.84] | 4 studies · 234 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 1.72 [0.42, 6.99] | 4 studies · 234 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Propolis vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 70.30] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 3.50 [0.80, 15.23] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Aloe vera vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 51.00 [3.25, 801.15] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 28.00 [4.07, 192.79] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Tempophore vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | RR 3.21 [0.14, 75.68] | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 2.69 [0.57, 12.70] | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Akcay 2014); not estimable | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.88] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
ProRoot MTA vs OrthoMTA
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.50 [0.05, 5.33] | 1 study · 94 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.98] | 1 study · 94 participants | Ungraded |
ProRoot MTA vs RetroMTA
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Kang 2015); not estimable | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.35 [0.04, 3.22] | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
OrthoMTA vs RetroMTA
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.70 [0.12, 3.98] | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 3.13 [0.13, 74.85] | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Portland cement (PC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 17.00 [1.07, 270.41] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 13.00 [0.80, 212.02] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 70.92] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 8.00 [1.06, 60.21] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.50 [0.15, 1.64] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.50 [0.15, 1.64] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.24, 4.18] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.88] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.63 [0.23, 1.70] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Biodentine vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.72] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) vs Buffered glutaraldehyde
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption, pulp canal obliteration (Goyal 2016); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; no significant differences | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Diode laser vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.23 [0.04, 1.30] | 3 studies · 130 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.89 [0.38, 2.12] | 3 studies · 130 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Electrosurgery vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 1.25 [0.38, 4.12] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.56 [0.13, 2.34] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ferric sulphate (FS) vs Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.88 [0.34, 2.23] | 2 studies · 100 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.25 [0.37, 4.27] | 2 studies · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Portland cement (PC) vs Full strength formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 2.00 [0.19, 21.06] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.80 [0.23, 2.73] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Portland cement (PC) vs Enamel matrix derivative (EMD)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.57 [0.18, 1.78] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 0.67 [0.12, 3.75] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Portland cement (PC) vs Portland cement + iodoform or Portland cement + zirconium oxide
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure up to 24 months | No events in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure up to 24 months | No events in any participant (Lourenco 2015a); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Full strength formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 3 months | RR 1.10 [0.17, 7.10] | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 3 months | RR 1.10 [0.31, 3.84] | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Full strength formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 3 months | RR 0.46 [0.04, 4.74] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 3 months | RR 0.46 [0.09, 2.28] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Electrofulguration + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Electrofulguration + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.83 [0.26, 2.73] | 1 study · 47 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.94 [0.47, 1.88] | 1 study · 47 participants | Ungraded |
Diode laser vs Electrosurgery
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.20 [0.01, 3.70] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.64 [0.19, 2.18] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Electrosurgery vs Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | No clinical failure in any participant at 6/12/24 months (Khorakian 2014); not estimable | 1 study · 102 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.50 [0.10, 2.61] | 1 study · 102 participants | Ungraded |
Biodentine vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 112 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | No clinical failure in any participant (El Meligy 2016); not estimable | 1 study · 112 participants | Ungraded |
Biodentine vs Diode laser
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption, premature tooth loss (Niranjani 2015); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; RR 2.00 (0.20 to 20.33) | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Biodentine vs Tempophore
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | RR 1.08 [0.07, 16.36] | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.54 [0.11, 2.70] | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Biodentine vs Propolis
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.43 [0.12, 1.47] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.81] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) vs 1:5 diluted formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 70.30] | 2 studies · 150 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.86 [0.52, 6.59] | 2 studies · 150 participants | Ungraded |
Diode laser vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 2.00 [0.75, 5.33] | 1 study · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.95] | 1 study · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 7.00 [0.39, 124.83] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 7.00 [0.39, 124.83] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.58] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.16, 6.20] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Full strength formocresol (FC) vs 1:5 diluted formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | No event in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | No event in any participant (Goyal 2014); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Full strength formocresol (FC) vs 1:25 diluted formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | No event in any participant (Goyal 2014); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 months | No event in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
1:5 diluted formocresol (FC) vs 1:25 diluted formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | No event in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | No event in any participant (Goyal 2014); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Endoflas chlorophenol free (Endoflas-CF)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.16, 6.25] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 1.33 [0.35, 5.03] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and propolis (ZOP)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 2.00 [0.20, 19.91] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.80 [0.26, 2.45] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs RC Fill
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 2.00 [0.65, 6.15] | 1 study · 86 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 30 months | No clinical failure in any participant at 6/12/30 months (Pramila 2016); not estimable | 1 study · 86 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs ZOE + calcium hydroxide + iodoform (MPRCF, unnamed product)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 42.63 [2.65, 685.54] | 1 study · 109 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 21.79 [1.32, 360.78] | 1 study · 109 participants | Ungraded |
Endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform) vs RC Fill
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Listed as a pulpectomy comparison but no extractable outcome data reported in this version | 0 studies | No studies |
Endoflas chlorophenol free (Endoflas-CF) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 68.26] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 1.33 [0.35, 5.03] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Endoflas chlorophenol free (Endoflas-CF) vs Zinc oxide and propolis (ZOP)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | Radiological failure (pathologic radiolucency); no significant difference | 1 study | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | Endoflas-CF vs ZOP (Al-Ostwani 2016); no significant difference | 1 study | Ungraded |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Ozonated sesame oil-zinc oxide (ZO)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Listed as a pulpectomy comparison; no extractable outcome data reported in this version | 0 studies | No studies |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs RC Fill
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Listed as a pulpectomy comparison; no extractable outcome data reported in this version | 0 studies | No studies |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Zinc oxide and propolis (ZOP)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Listed as a pulpectomy comparison; no extractable outcome data reported in this version | 0 studies | No studies |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs ZOE + calcium hydroxide + iodoform (unnamed product)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.05 [0.00, 0.76] | 1 study · 109 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | Radiological failure favouring ZOE+CH+iodoform product | 1 study · 109 participants | Ungraded |
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) vs Ciprofloxacin + ornidazole + minocycline
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Listed as a pulpectomy comparison; no extractable outcome data reported in this version | 0 studies | No studies |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs IRM (intermediate restorative material)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Listed as a pulpectomy comparison; no extractable outcome data reported in this version | 0 studies | No studies |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Gutta-percha / AH-Plus
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Listed as a pulpectomy comparison; no extractable outcome data reported in this version | 0 studies | No studies |
Ferric sulphate/MTA pulpotomy vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 18 months | RR 2.16 [0.23, 20.35] | 1 study · 172 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 18 months | RR 0.84 [0.29, 2.39] | 1 study · 172 participants | Ungraded |
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy vs 3Mix pulpectomy
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 5.00 [0.25, 99.95] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 11.00 [0.64, 190.53] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | No radiological failure in any participant at 6 months; not estimable | 1 study · 42 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.70] | 1 study · 42 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.17 [0.04, 0.70] | 1 study · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 12 months | No radiological failure in any participant (Aminabadi 2016); not estimable | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs 3Mixtatin
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.67 [0.12, 3.78] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Simvastatin
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.17 [0.04, 0.70] | 1 study · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) vs 3Mixtatin
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 4.00 [1.22, 13.11] | 1 study · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) vs Simvastatin
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.51, 1.95] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 12 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
3Mixtatin vs Simvastatin
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.25 [0.08, 0.82] | 1 study · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 12 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide cement (Dycal) vs Calcium sulphate hemihydrate (DentoGen)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 4.00 [0.49, 32.72] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.67 [0.46, 6.06] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Electrosurgery vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 9 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 71.22] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 9 months | RR 5.00 [0.62, 40.64] | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.78 [0.35, 1.75] | 3 studies · 178 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 1.26 [0.66, 2.42] | 3 studies · 178 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy vs Sedanol (zinc oxide and eugenol, ZOE) pulpectomy
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.60 [0.25, 1.46] | 1 study · 291 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.39 [0.06, 2.58] | 9 studies · 778 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.46 [0.19, 1.09] | 8 studies · 652 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 1.98 [1.17, 3.37] | 5 studies · 302 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.72 [1.32, 2.25] | NR | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.24 [0.03, 2.01] | 2 studies · 58 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.37 [0.16, 0.86] | 2 studies · 58 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.63 [0.22, 1.78] | 2 studies · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.60 [0.24, 1.49] | 2 studies · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 3.41 [0.37, 31.61] | 2 studies · 122 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.28 [0.53, 3.13] | 2 studies · 122 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide/iodoform (CH/iodoform) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 9.11 [3.04, 27.31] | 1 study · 67 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 9.11 [3.04, 27.31] | 1 study · 67 participants | Ungraded |
Diode laser + MTA vs Formocresol (FC) + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure mean 15.7 months | No clinical failure in any participant regardless of delay (Saltzman 2005); not estimable | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure mean 15.7 months | RR 4.00 [0.48, 33.42] | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.83 [0.29, 2.38] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 1.67 [0.71, 3.89] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.46 [0.24, 0.88] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.20 [0.03, 1.51] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Erbium:YAG laser vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 2.13 [0.20, 22.70] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 1.06 [0.28, 4.01] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.10 [0.01, 0.72] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.20 [0.03, 1.59] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Portland cement (PC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6, 12 and 18 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 18 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Sakai 2009); not estimable | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.04, 2.94] | 1 study · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 18 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Malekafzali 2011); not estimable | 1 study · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR mean 22 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue pathology, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption, pulp canal obliteration (Doyle 2010); no clinical or radiological failure outcome reported; no significant differences | 1 study · 130 participants | Ungraded |
Erbium:YAG laser vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 0.62 [0.11, 3.56] | 1 study · 91 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.31 [0.11, 0.90] | 1 study · 91 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide/iodoform (CH/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.13 [0.82, 1.54] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.17 [0.87, 1.59] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.60 [0.26, 1.40] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 1.20 [0.42, 3.43] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Erbium:YAG laser vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.61 [0.19, 1.94] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 5.31 [0.26, 107.86] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Vargas 2006); not estimable | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.29 [0.09, 0.97] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Ferric sulphate (FS)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR mean 22 months | Assessed pain, soft tissue pathology, mobility, radiolucency, root resorption, pulp canal obliteration (Doyle 2010); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; no significant differences | 1 study · 135 participants | Ungraded |
Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 3 months | RR 1.10 [0.31, 3.84] | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 3 months | RR 1.10 [0.17, 7.10] | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 3 months | RR 0.46 [0.04, 4.74] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 3 months | RR 0.46 [0.09, 2.28] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Glutaraldehyde + calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Glutaraldehyde + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.11 [0.46, 2.67] | 1 study · 61 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 2.90 [0.32, 26.38] | 1 study · 61 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 0.75 [0.19, 3.04] | 2 studies · 94 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.84] | 2 studies · 94 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 months | RR 2.50 [0.50, 12.50] | 2 studies · 110 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 9.00 [0.52, 156.92] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 5.00 [0.26, 98.00] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 5.00 [0.26, 98.00] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.58] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.58] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform) vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 14.56] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 14.56] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) + Metapex (CH/iodoform) vs Metapex (CH/iodoform)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, radiolucency, root resorption, filling material anomaly (Ramar 2010); no clinical/radiological failure outcome; pathological root resorption RR 0.36 (0.13 to 1.07) | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) + Metapex (CH/iodoform) vs RC-FILL (ZOE with iodoform)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, radiolucency, root resorption, filling material anomaly (Ramar 2010); no significant differences | 1 study · 66 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 15.12] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 months | RR 1.83 [0.80, 4.19] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.20 [0.01, 3.92] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.20 [0.01, 3.92] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.11 [0.01, 1.94] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.11 [0.01, 1.94] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Sealapex (eugenol-free calcium hydroxide) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 months | RR 0.50 [0.10, 2.43] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.50 [0.10, 2.43] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs Endoflas (CH + ZOE + iodoform)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.58] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 6 and 12 months | RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.58] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Metapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs RC-FILL (ZOE with iodoform)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 months | Assessed pain, radiolucency, root resorption, filling material anomaly (Ramar 2010); no significant differences | 1 study · 64 participants | Ungraded |
Formocresol (FC) pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy (calcium hydroxide)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | Coser 2008 randomised 51 teeth; no data about any outcomes provided | 1 study · 51 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Formocresol (FC)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 3.11 [1.61, 6.02] | 1 study · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 24 months | RR 3.83 [1.68, 8.74] | 1 study · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure up to 24 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure up to 24 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Tuna 2008); not estimable (direct pulp capping) | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR 6 and 12 months | Direct pulp capping; overall failure RR 1.00 (0.06 to 15.50) at 6 and 12 months (Garrocho-Rangel 2009); no pain/soft tissue/mobility/root resorption | 1 study · 90 participants | Ungraded |
Acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure up to 24 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Demir 2007); not estimable (direct pulp capping) | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure up to 24 months | No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Demir 2007); not estimable | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 7.00 [0.38, 127.33] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure up to 24 months | No clinical failure in any participant (Demir 2007); not estimable | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 7.00 [0.38, 127.33] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 7.00 [0.38, 127.33] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 12 and 24 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 14.90] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 6, 12 and 24 months | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive
Population: Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 24 months | RR 0.33 [0.04, 2.94] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure 12 and 24 months | RR 1.00 [0.07, 14.90] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Electrosurgery pulpotomy vs Formocresol (FC) pulpotomy
Population: Children under 11 years with extensive decay involving the pulp in one or more primary molar teeth (symptomatic or symptom free)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Radiological failure 5-24 months | Three electrosurgically treated teeth and two formocresol treated teeth exhibited radiographical failure only (Comparison 1, Outcome 1.3) | 1 study · 21 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical failure / tooth extraction 10-24 months | One electrosurgically treated tooth extracted after 10 months due to clinical and radiographical pathology (Dean 2002); all other pulp treatments clinically successful (Comparison 1, Outcomes 1.1 and 1.2) | 1 study · 21 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy vs Formocresol (FC) pulpotomy
Population: Children under 11 years with extensive decay involving the pulp in one or more primary molar teeth (symptomatic or symptom free)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical failure / tooth extraction 20 months | No pulp treatment failures in either group necessitating extraction or considered clinical failures at 20 months (Ibricevic 2000) (Comparison 2, Outcomes 2.1 and 2.2) | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Radiological failure 20 months | One tooth in each group exhibiting internal resorption considered radiographic failures (Comparison 2, Outcome 2.3) | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy vs Zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy
Population: Children under 11 years with extensive decay involving the pulp in one or more primary molar teeth (symptomatic or symptom free)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Tooth extraction 24 months | RR 4.26 [1.06, 17.16] | 1 study · 53 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical and radiological failure 24 months | One of the 12 FS molars failed clinically and radiologically, the other 11 failing only radiologically; both pulpectomy molars extracted were radiological failures only (Comparison 2, Outcomes 2.2 and 2.3) | 1 study · 53 participants | Ungraded |