Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Postoperative pain after pulpotomy versus pulpectomy of primary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: an equivalent randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative pain after pulpotomy versus pulpectomy of primary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). MATERIALS AND
methodsAn equivalent parallel, two-tailed randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 92 children aged 5 to 7 years presenting with carious mandibular second primary molars exhibiting signs of SIP. Participants were randomly assigned to two equal groups of 46 children each, with the affected mandibular second primary molars treated using either pulpotomy as the intervention or pulpectomy as the control treatment. The postoperative severity of pain was determined at 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 h and after one-week following treatment using a modified Wong-Baker FACES (WBF) pain scale. Considering an equivalence margin of 10% between the two endodontic techniques, the absolute risk difference (ARD) was calculated at a 90% confidence interval. The level of significance was set to < 5%.
resultsAfter six hours, 65.2% of pulpotomy and 73.9% of pulpectomy patients reported no pain. At 24 and 48 h, pain absence was comparable between groups (73.9% vs. 78.3%). However, by one week, 8.7% of pulpotomy patients still experienced severe pain versus 2.2% in pulpectomy. The incidence of postoperative pain severity after either pulpotomy or pulpectomy was equivalent with no significant difference over the follow-up periods.
conclusionsPulpotomy could be an alternative approach to treat primary molars with SIP when hemostasis can be achieved. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Postoperative pain intensity is a critical factor in assessing the success of endodontic treatment, especially in children. Pulpotomy can be a suitable and less invasive endodontic treatment for primary teeth with SIP.
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.