ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Long-term Outcomes of Invasive Pulp Therapies in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
Objectives: Fate of invasive pulp therapies, such as pulpotomy and pulpectomy, is uncertain due to several factors. Despite availability of primary research, no systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) have explored long-term outcomes of different pulpal interventions in primary teeth. Our research question is, what are the long-term outcomes of invasive pulp therapies in primary teeth? Material and methods: Two researchers searched literature using keywords in PubMed and other search engines. Articles with full texts and translations in English were included. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and other studies with follow-up of a minimum of 2 years, reporting clinical and radiographic parameters, were included. Results: Clinical success of pulpotomy was 92.32% [95% confidence interval (CI) (88.99-95.00)] based on 28 studies with 1,410 teeth; radiographic success of pulpotomy was 85.35% [95% CI (80.94-89.26)] based on 29 studies with 874 teeth. Clinical success of pulpectomy was 79.96% [95% CI (71.86-86.98)] based on 21 studies with 2007 teeth; radiographic success of pulpotomy was 74.07% [95% CI (67.84-79.84)] based on 21 studies with 2007 teeth. Random effects model (REM) was used since heterogeneity was high. Risk of bias was moderate. Publication bias was minimal. Conclusion: Clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy was higher than pulpectomy in primary teeth after 24-month follow-up. How to cite this article: Vaiude A, Jawdekar A, Mistry LN. Long-term Outcomes of Invasive Pulp Therapies in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026;19(3):389-402.
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.