Trial reportInternational endodontic journal2026
Short-Term Outcomes of Full Pulpotomy Compared With Root Canal Treatment for Irreversible Pulpitis: The PROVE Study.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pulp sensibility assessment following permanent tooth pulpotomy: a scoping review of clinical studies.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assimilate data from individual randomised trials and perform a pooled analysis of short-term outcomes of pulpotomy compared with root canal treatment (RCT) for teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIRP).
methodsRandomised trials were conducted in eight countries using a standardised clinical protocol and outcome measures. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of SIRP in a restorable tooth that could be adequately isolated. A block randomisation method was used. Short-term outcomes were postoperative pain (assessed at baseline, day 3 and day 7), analgesic consumption and early failure, which was defined as the need for additional intervention within 4 weeks of treatment. Data were analysed using R v4.3.1.
resultsA total of 410 patients were randomised, with data available for 385 patients. A significant reduction in pain intensity was observed over time for each treatment group (p < 0.0001). Participants who received RCT were observed to have a significantly greater decrease in pain intensity between baseline and day 3, mean Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) of 1.7 (p = 0.0034) and from day 3 to day 7 with a mean NRS of 0.7 (p = 0.0471) compared with participants treated with pulpotomy who had mean NRS of 2.4 and 1.2 respectively. Use of analgesics remained high between baseline and day 3 for participants treated with pulpotomy but significantly decreased for RCT (51.1%, 70/137 vs. 33.3%, 46/138; p = 0.0042). The use of analgesics was significantly reduced in both treatment groups between day 3 and day 7 but was significantly higher at day 7 for participants treated with pulpotomy compared to RCT (19.7%, 27/137 vs. 9.4%, 13/138; p = 0.0246). Early failure was significantly more common for participants who underwent pulpotomy treatment (10/192; 5.2%) compared with RCT (1/193; 0.5%) (p = 0.0141) and was associated with preoperative tenderness to percussion (TTP), molar teeth, sleep disturbance and prolonged bleeding time after exposure.
conclusionThe PROVE study provides the first robust evidence that both pulpotomy and RCT provided effective pain relief up to day 7; but significantly more pain relief and reduced analgesic intake were evident after RCT. Early failure rate was low in both groups.
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.