ReviewCureus2026
The Effectiveness of Full Pulpotomy Versus Root Canal Therapy for Mature Teeth With Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Full pulpotomy preserves the radicular pulp and may reduce the procedural burden of root canal therapy (RCT), but comparative randomized evidence in mature teeth with irreversible pulpitis remains limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the two procedures. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through February 2026. Five trials comprising 832 participants were eligible. The primary outcome was pain at seven days after treatment; secondary outcomes were pain at one day, time to pain relief, moderate-to-severe pain at seven days, clinical or radiographic success, and postoperative analgesic use. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Pain at seven days did not differ significantly between full pulpotomy and RCT (mean difference (MD) = -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.71 to 0.10; p = 0.14), and the likelihood of successful healing was similar ( risk ratio (RR) = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.24; p = 0.99). Pain at one day was lower after pulpotomy (MD = -1.60, 95% CI: -2.99 to -0.21; p = 0.02), although this association lost statistical significance when several individual studies were omitted. The pooled estimate for the variably defined reported time-to-relief outcome favored pulpotomy: RCT required 18.86 hours longer than pulpotomy (MD for RCT minus pulpotomy, 95% CI: 12.58 to 25.14; p < 0.001). Moderate-to-severe pain at seven days and analgesic use were not significantly different. On the basis of the available randomized evidence, full pulpotomy can achieve short-term pain and healing outcomes comparable with RCT in carefully selected mature permanent teeth. RCT remains the established reference treatment, whereas full pulpotomy may be considered a tissue-preserving alternative in appropriate cases. Further large-scale randomized trials using standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up periods are warranted.
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.