Trial reportInternational endodontic journal2026
Three-Year Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Selective Caries Removal and Full Pulpotomy for Extensive Caries: An Exploratory Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in International endodontic journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04672070 (A Randomised Clinical Trial to Test the Efficacy of Selective Caries Removal), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
A Randomised Clinical Trial to Test the Efficacy of Selective Caries Removal (SCR) Versus Pulpotomy in Preventing Pulp Necrosis and Apical Periodontitis
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selective caries removal or pulpotomy: which approach is better for 'deep' carious lesions?Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Trial
- Histological evaluation of energy-intensive irrigation systems for debridement of uninstrumented oval root canals with different access cavity designs.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to compare pulp survival following selective caries removal (SCR) and full pulpotomy treatment in teeth with extensive caries over 3 years. METHODOLOGY: This two-arm, exploratory randomised controlled trial included vital mature permanent teeth with extensive primary or secondary caries diagnosed radiographically as being at least 75% or more into the thickness of dentine, without clinical signs of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or radiographic evidence of a periapical lesion. Carious teeth were randomly allocated to receive either SCR or full pulpotomy. All teeth were reviewed clinically and radiographically at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years post-treatment. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to compare the outcomes of SCR and pulpotomy, adjusting for clustering using a robust variance estimator. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using the healthcare system and societal perspectives. Significance level was set at 5%.
resultsAt 3 years, 44/58 teeth (75.9%) in the SCR group and 37/55 teeth (67.3%) in the full pulpotomy group were reviewed. A total of 13 teeth in the SCR group (29.5%) and 4 teeth in the pulpotomy group (10.8%) required further intervention with root canal treatment (RCT) or extraction (p = 0.039). Survival rates were 74% for SCR and 89% for pulpotomy (p = 0.041). Overall, 79.0% of teeth treated with either SCR or pulpotomy survived without requiring further intervention over the 3-year period. In this study with more than two-thirds of the enrolled teeth classified as extremely deep lesions, pulpotomy was more cost-effective than SCR in the management of extensive caries above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $917 and $928 to avoid one tooth extraction or RCT from the healthcare system and societal perspective, respectively.
conclusionFull pulpotomy demonstrated greater effectiveness than SCR in avoiding further intervention over a 3-year period in teeth with extensive caries, of which the majority were extremely deep lesions. Further long-term studies and broader health economic evaluations are warranted to guide clinical decision-making and policy development.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04672070.
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.