Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36209498›Full record

SynthesisInternational endodontic journal2023

Effectiveness of pulpotomy compared with root canal treatment in managing non-traumatic pulpitis associated with spontaneous pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Phillip L Tomson, Juliana Vilela Bastos, Jelena Jacimovic, Aleksandar Jakovljevic, Shaju Jacob Pulikkotil, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International endodontic journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Phillip L TomsonInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Juliana Vilela BastosDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2062-2566
Jelena JacimovicCentral Library, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6537-7269
Aleksandar JakovljevicDepartment of Pathophysiology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6512-4934
Shaju Jacob PulikkotilDivision of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5727-8255
Venkateshbabu NagendrababuDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3783-3156
University of Belgrade · RSIMU University · MYUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Sharjah · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain can result in debilitating pain. Dogma has existed to offer only have two treatment options, namely root canal treatment (RCT) or extraction, although pulpotomy has always remained a potential treatment modality.

objectiveThis review aimed to answer the following research question: 'Does pulpotomy (partial or full) (I) result in better patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), compared with RCT (C) in permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain (P) evaluated at various time intervals?' (T).

methodsTwo authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between RCT and pulpotomy were included. The meta-analysis was performed on a fixed-effect model and the quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

resultsTwo randomized clinical trials were included. Amongst two trials, one has published four reports at different time points involving the same cohorts. The meta-analysis revealed no difference in postoperative pain (Day 7) between RCT and pulpotomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63-1.55, I DISCUSSION: Pulpotomy is a definitive treatment modality that is as effective as RCT. This could have a significant impact on treatment of such patients affording the advantages of retaining a vital pulp and preventing the need for RCT.

conclusionThis review could only include two trials, hence there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions. The clinical data accumulated so far suggests no difference in pain between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively and a single randomized control trial suggests that the clinical success rate for both treatment modalities is similar long term. There is a need for more well-designed trials by different research groups to develop a stronger evidence base in this area. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42021259744).

Indexed as

PulpitisPulpotomyDental Pulp CavityHumansPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRoot Canal TherapyTreatment Outcomeendodonticspulpotomyroot canal treatmentsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36209498
OpenAlexW4303876228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.