Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35076954›Full record

SynthesisInternational endodontic journal2022

Pulpotomy for treatment of complicated crown fractures in permanent teeth: A systematic review.

Aisling Donnelly, Federico Foschi, Paul McCabe, Henry F Duncan

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International endodontic journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Aisling DonnellyFaculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0351-9636
Federico FoschiFaculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6901-0280
Paul McCabeSpecialist Endodontist, Oranmore Endodontics, Oranmore, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8464-2435
Henry F DuncanDivision of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8690-2379
American Association of Endodontists · USKing's College London · GBSechenov University · RUTrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsensus on the treatment of choice for complicated crown fractures of teeth is limited. Recent guidance recommends vital-pulp-therapy; however, the preferred type is not specified. Higher success rates for pulpotomy compared to pulp-capping have been documented, which suggests pulpotomy may be a preferable option for complicated crown-fractures.

objectivesThe purpose of this systematic review was to determine the success rate of pulpotomy (partial and complete) on teeth that suffered complicated crown fractures.

participantspatients who have suffered a complicated crown fracture to an anterior permanent tooth.

interventionpulpotomy (partial or complete). Comparator: pulp-capping or root canal treatment. OUTCOME: combined clinical and radiographic success at or after 12 months.

methodsA systematic literature using key search terms was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL) as well as a grey literature search from inception to May 2021 and without language restricted to English. Strict inclusion criteria were applied. A standardized tool with defined criteria to assess the risk of bias in each study was used. For non-randomized comparative trials, the Robins-I tool was used while the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-comparative non-randomized studies.

resultsSeven retrospective clinical studies were included. The studies reported high success rates for pulpotomy with overall success ranges for partial or complete pulpotomy ranging from 75% to 96%. One study compared the success rates of pulpotomy to an alternative treatment option pulp capping (90.9% vs. 67%, respectively). Due to the lack of homogeneity in the included studies, a meta-analysis was not possible. DISCUSSION: This review highlights the limited evidence based for the current guidance on treatment of complicated crown fractures. The findings of the review indicate high success rates for pulpotomy; however, there is a moderate risk of bias and small sample sizes in the included studies with the result that the overall results should be interpreted with caution.

conclusionWithin the limitations of this review, the benefits and high success rates reported for partial pulpotomy suggest this procedure, rather than pulp-capping, should be considered as the treatment of choice for both immature and mature teeth that have suffered complicated crown-fractures.

Indexed as

Dentition, PermanentPulpotomyCrownsDental Pulp CappingHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomecomplicated crown fracturesdental traumafollow-uppulp exposurepulpotomyvital pulp therapy

Identifiers

PMID35076954
PMCPMC9304243
OpenAlexW4206942619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.