Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38807160›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in vital primary molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

Nebu Philip, Joe Mathew Cherian, Mebin George Mathew, Abi M Thomas, Sunaina Jodhka, Nino John, Bharat Suneja, Mandeep Duggal

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06183203 (Treatment Outcomes of Pulpotomy Versus Pulpectomy in Vital Primary Molars Diagnosed With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06183203 nawithdrawnnot on this map

Treatment Outcomes of Pulpotomy Versus Pulpectomy in Vital Primary Molars Diagnosed With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorNebu PhilipRan2024 to 2027Enrolled0ConditionsIrreversible PulpitisArmsPulpotomy, Pulpectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Clinical decision-making in pulp therapy of primary teeth among Tunisian dental practitioners: a cross-sectional study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Nebu PhilipCollege of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. nphilip@qu.edu.qa.
Joe Mathew CherianDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, India.
Mebin George MathewDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, India.
Abi M ThomasDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, India.
Sunaina JodhkaThe Dentist Multi-Speciality Clinic, Ludhiana, India.
Nino JohnPrimary Health Care Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Bharat SunejaThe Dental Care Centre, Ludhiana, India.
Mandeep DuggalCollege of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulpectomy continues to be the standard treatment recommendation for management of vital primary molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The recent decade has seen a paradigm shift in the treatment concepts of how vital mature permanent molars diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis can be more conservatively managed using vital pulp therapy techniques like pulpotomy. However, despite emerging evidence indicating similarities between primary and permanent tooth pulp response to dental caries, there is limited research on whether pulpotomy can be similarly used as a definitive treatment modality for vital primary teeth with irreversible pulpitis. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the treatment effectiveness of pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in management of vital primary molars diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis over a two-year period. METHODS/

designThis clinical study is a parallel, two-armed, open label, non-inferiority RCT with a 1:1 allocation ratio between the experimental intervention arm (pulpotomy) and the active comparator arm (pulpectomy). Healthy cooperative children, between 4-9 years of age, who have painful primary molars with clinical symptoms typical of irreversible pulpitis will be recruited after obtaining informed consent from their parents/legal guardians. 50 vital primary molars clinically diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis will be randomly distributed between the two treatment arms. The primary outcomes that will be assessed are clinical and radiographic success after six-months, one-year and two-years of the trial interventions. The influence of baseline pre-operative variables (age; gender; tooth type; site of caries; pre-operative furcal radiolucency; pre-operative pain intensity) and intra-operative factors (time taken to achieve haemostasis) on treatment outcomes will also be assessed. The secondary outcome evaluated will be the immediate (24 h and 7 d) post-operative pain relief afforded by the two treatment interventions. DISCUSSION: This trial seeks to provide evidence on whether pulpotomy treatment can be no worse than the standard pulpectomy treatment for the management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in vital primary molars.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06183203). Registered on 30 January 2024.

Indexed as

MolarPulpectomyPulpitisPulpotomyTooth, DeciduousChildChild, PreschoolEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeIrreversible pulpitisPulpectomyPulpotomyVital primary molars

Identifiers

PMID38807160
PMCPMC11134690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.