Introduction and objective
Pulpotomy is increasingly explored as a minimally invasive alternative to pulpectomy for managing irreversible pulpitis in primary teeth. However, its comparative effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review aims to compare the clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in primary teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
Study selection and sources
A detailed search of six electronic databases up to April 2025 identified studies comparing pulpotomy and pulpectomy in primary teeth with symptomatic or asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis, excluding cases with swelling, sinus tract, furcal or periapical radiolucency, or root resorption, and with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two studies met the inclusion criteria: one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and one retrospective cohort study. Meta-analyses were done through random-effects model.
Results
For radiographic success, the pooled risk ratio (RR) was 1.35 (95 % CI: 0.67–2.73; p value = 0.40), with no significant difference between the two treatments. However, it showed very high heterogeneity, I² = 96 %. For clinical success, the pooled RR was 1.06 (95 % CI: 0.95–1.18; p value = 0.28), again showing no significant difference, with heterogeneity, I² = 66 %.
Conclusions
The review revealed no statistically significant difference between the two treatment modalities for managing irreversible pulpitis in primary teeth without clinical signs of swelling or radiographic evidence of periapical infection up to 12 months of follow-up. However, certainty of evidence was very low for both the outcomes.
Clinical significance
Pulpotomy appears to be an effective, minimally invasive alternative to pulpectomy in primary teeth with irreversible pulpitis. However, further well-designed, long-term studies are recommended.
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号