ReviewScience progress
Pulpotomy for irreversible pulpitis in mature permanent teeth: An overview of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Determinants of Definitive Full Pulpotomy Adoption in Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Multivariable Analysis of Dental Trainee Decision-Making.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Challenges and Therapeutic Approaches in Managing Deep Carious Lesions Close to the Pulp in Permanent Teeth: A Narrative Review.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundPulpotomy is widely used in primary and immature permanent teeth, but its effectiveness in mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis remains controversial.ObjectiveTo identify and evaluate the existing systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pulpotomy as a treatment for irreversible pulpitis in mature permanent teeth.MethodsA protocol-guided search was conducted across PubMed, ProQuest, EMBASE, and Cochrane up to March 2024, targeting systematic reviews based on RCTs. Eligibility, selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool.ResultsOf the 52 articles retrieved, only one systematic review met inclusion criteria. The review included four RCTs involving 874 patients. Reported clinical success rates ranged from 81.2% to 98.19%, and radiographic success ranged from 38.4% to 95%, with the highest outcomes observed for calcium-enriched mixture and mineral trioxide aggregate. The AMSTAR 2 assessment rated the systematic review as critically low quality.ConclusionCurrent evidence from systematic reviews is insufficient to definitively recommend pulpotomy for irreversible pulpitis in mature permanent teeth. However, favorable clinical outcomes and the minimally invasive, cost-effective nature of the procedure suggest that pulpotomy may serve as a practical alternative to root canal treatment in select cases. High-quality RCTs and systematic reviews are urgently needed to strengthen the evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.