ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Pulp sensibility assessment following permanent tooth pulpotomy: a scoping review of clinical studies.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vital pulp therapy (VPT), particularly pulpotomy, has emerged as a predictable treatment option for permanent teeth with deep caries and even in the presence of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Although numerous clinical studies have reported favorable outcomes, considerable variation exists in the methods used to assess postoperative pulp sensibility. This scoping review aimed to systematically map the pulp sensibility assessment methods, diagnostic methods, and follow-up schedules employed in clinical studies evaluating permanent tooth pulpotomy. This scoping review was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and prospectively registered in the Open Science Framework. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Scopus without date restrictions. Clinical studies involving partial or full pulpotomy in permanent teeth that reported postoperative pulp sensibility assessment were included. Data regarding study characteristics, pulpotomy procedures, sensibility assessment methods, follow-up intervals, and key findings were extracted and synthesized descriptively. The search identified 4,287 records, of which 35 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The included studies comprised randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective clinical studies, and one quasi-experimental study. EPT combined with cold testing was the most frequently used assessment methods, followed by cold testing alone and EPT alone. Follow-up intervals varied substantially, ranging from 2 days to 8 years, although most studies evaluated sensibility at 6, 12, and 24 months. A consistent finding across studies was the markedly higher positive response rate obtained with EPT compared with cold testing after full pulpotomy. Teeth treated with partial pulpotomy generally maintained more favorable responses to both EPT and thermal tests. Several studies also reported transient postoperative thermal hypersensitivity during the early healing period, particularly following partial pulpotomy. Considerable heterogeneity exists in postoperative pulp sensibility assessment methods following permanent tooth pulpotomy. According to the included studies, EPT demonstrated higher response rates than cold testing after full pulpotomy. Standardized assessment methods and the incorporation of objective assessment methods are needed to improve the consistency of outcome reporting and facilitate comparisons among future VPT studies.
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.