Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth

Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron, Anne-Marie Glenny, Frédéric Courson, Pierre Durieux, Michele Muller-Bolla, Helene Fron Chabouis, Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron, Anne-Marie Glenny, Frédéric Courson, Pierre Durieux, Michele Muller-Bolla, Helene Fron Chabouis

Abstract

Background: In children, dental caries (tooth decay) is among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. Pulp interventions are indicated for extensive tooth decay. Depending on the severity of the disease, three pulp treatment techniques are available: direct pulp capping, pulpotomy and pulpectomy. After treatment, the cavity is filled with a medicament. Materials commonly used include mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium hydroxide, formocresol or ferric sulphate.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014 when insufficient evidence was found to clearly identify one superior pulpotomy medicament and technique.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different pulp treatment techniques and associated medicaments for the treatment of extensive decay in primary teeth.

Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 August 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 August 2017) and the Web of Science (1945 to 10 August 2017). OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions that combined a pulp treatment technique with a medicament or device in children with extensive decay in the dental pulp of their primary teeth.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed 'Risk of bias'. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information when necessary. The primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure, as defined in trials, at six, 12 and 24 months. We performed data synthesis with pair-wise meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using I² coefficients.

Main results: We included 40 new trials bringing the total to 87 included trials (7140 randomised teeth) for this update. All were small, single-centre trials (median number of randomised teeth = 68). All trials were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias.The 87 trials examined 125 different comparisons: 75 comparisons of different medicaments or techniques for pulpotomy; 25 comparisons of different medicaments for pulpectomy; four comparisons of pulpotomy and pulpectomy; and 21 comparisons of different medicaments for direct pulp capping.The proportion of clinical failures and radiological failures was low in all trials. In many trials, there were either no clinical failures or no radiographic failures in either study arm.For pulpotomy, we assessed three comparisons as providing moderate-quality evidence. Compared with formocresol, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with a statistically significant difference at 12 months for clinical failure and at six, 12 and 24 months for radiological failure (12 trials, 740 participants). Compared with calcium hydroxide, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with statistically significant differences for clinical failure at 12 and 24 months. MTA also appeared to reduce radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (four trials, 150 participants) (low-quality evidence). When comparing calcium hydroxide with formocresol, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of formocresol for clinical failure at six and 12 months and radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (six trials (one with no failures), 332 participants).Regarding pulpectomy, we found moderate-quality evidence for two comparisons. The comparison between Metapex and zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) paste was inconclusive, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions for failure at 6 or 12 months (two trials, 62 participants). Similarly inconclusive, there was no clear evidence of a difference in failure between Endoflas and ZOE (outcomes measured at 6 months; two trials, 80 participants). There was low-quality evidence of a difference in failure at 12 months that suggested ZOE paste may be better than Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) paste (two trials, 161 participants).Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies undertaking the same comparison limits any interpretation. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low or very low for all comparisons. One trial appeared to favour formocresol over calcium hydroxide; however, there are safety concerns about formocresol.

Authors' conclusions: Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth is generally successful. Many included trials had no clinical or radiological failures in either trial arm, and the overall proportion of failures was low. Any future trials in this area would require a very large sample size and follow up of a minimum of one year.The evidence suggests MTA may be the most efficacious medicament to heal the root pulp after pulpotomy of a deciduous tooth. As MTA is relatively expensive, future research could be undertaken to confirm if Biodentine, enamel matrix derivative, laser treatment or Ankaferd Blood Stopper are acceptable second choices, and whether, where none of these treatments can be used, application of sodium hypochlorite is the safest option. Formocresol, though effective, has known concerns about toxicity.Regarding pulpectomy, there is no conclusive evidence that one medicament or technique is superior to another, and so the choice of medicament remains at the clinician's discretion. Research could be undertaken to confirm if ZOE paste is more effective than Vitapex and to evaluate other alternatives.Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies and low quality of the evidence limited interpretation. Formocresol may be more successful than calcium hydroxide; however, given its toxicity, any future research should focus on alternatives.

Conflict of interest statement

Violaine Smaïl‐Faugeron: none known Anne‐Marie Glenny: none known. I am Deputy Co‐ordinating Editor with Cochrane Oral Health. Frédéric Courson: none known Pierre Durieux: has received in the past three years research grants from the French Ministry of Health (PREQHOS, PHRC). He has been member of scientific committees of ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche), PREQHOS (Projets de Recherche en qualité hospitalière) and PREPS (Projets de Recherche en Performance de Soins) of the French Ministry of Health. He has received consultancies from Amgen and ONYX, and the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). The author has no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the review in the previous three years (except the fact that the author is employee of an acute care hospital). Michele Muller‐Bolla: none known Hélène Fron Chabouis: our lab (URB2i, Universite Paris Descartes) has developed industrial partnerships but these did not have any link with this review and did not influence my work.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological mobility.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological radiolucency.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 10 Dentin bridge formation.
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 11 Physiological root resorption.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological root resorption.
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pulp canal obliteration.
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological mobility.
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pulp canal obliteration.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
4.6. Analysis
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic mobility.
4.7. Analysis
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic radiolucency.
4.8. Analysis
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
4.9. Analysis
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
5.4. Analysis
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
5.5. Analysis
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
5.6. Analysis
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological mobility.
5.7. Analysis
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological radiolucency.
5.8. Analysis
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
5.9. Analysis
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
5.10. Analysis
5.10. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 10 Dentin bridge formation.
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
6.2. Analysis
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
6.3. Analysis
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
6.4. Analysis
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
6.5. Analysis
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
6.6. Analysis
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
6.7. Analysis
6.7. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
6.8. Analysis
6.8. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pulp canal obliteration.
6.9. Analysis
6.9. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Dentin bridge formation.
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
7.3. Analysis
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
7.4. Analysis
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
7.5. Analysis
7.5. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
7.6. Analysis
7.6. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
7.7. Analysis
7.7. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
8.3. Analysis
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
8.4. Analysis
8.4. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
8.5. Analysis
8.5. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
8.6. Analysis
8.6. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological mobility.
8.7. Analysis
8.7. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological radiolucency.
8.8. Analysis
8.8. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
8.9. Analysis
8.9. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
8.10. Analysis
8.10. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 10 Dentin bridge formation.
9.1. Analysis
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
9.2. Analysis
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
9.3. Analysis
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
9.4. Analysis
9.4. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological root resorption.
10.1. Analysis
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
10.2. Analysis
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
10.3. Analysis
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
10.4. Analysis
10.4. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
10.5. Analysis
10.5. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
10.6. Analysis
10.6. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological root resorption.
10.7. Analysis
10.7. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pulp canal obliteration.
11.1. Analysis
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
11.2. Analysis
11.2. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
11.3. Analysis
11.3. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
11.4. Analysis
11.4. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
11.5. Analysis
11.5. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Adjacent tissue inflammation.
11.6. Analysis
11.6. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic mobility.
11.7. Analysis
11.7. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic radiolucency.
11.8. Analysis
11.8. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathologic root resorption.
12.1. Analysis
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
12.2. Analysis
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
12.3. Analysis
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
12.4. Analysis
12.4. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological radiolucency.
12.5. Analysis
12.5. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological root resorption.
13.1. Analysis
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
13.2. Analysis
13.2. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
13.3. Analysis
13.3. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
13.4. Analysis
13.4. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological mobility.
13.5. Analysis
13.5. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological root resorption.
13.6. Analysis
13.6. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pulp canal obliteration.
14.1. Analysis
14.1. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
14.2. Analysis
14.2. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
14.3. Analysis
14.3. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
14.4. Analysis
14.4. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
14.5. Analysis
14.5. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
14.6. Analysis
14.6. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic radiolucency.
14.7. Analysis
14.7. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic root resorption.
15.1. Analysis
15.1. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
15.2. Analysis
15.2. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
15.3. Analysis
15.3. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
15.4. Analysis
15.4. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological mobility.
15.5. Analysis
15.5. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
15.6. Analysis
15.6. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological root resorption.
15.7. Analysis
15.7. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pulp canal obliteration.
16.1. Analysis
16.1. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
16.2. Analysis
16.2. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
16.3. Analysis
16.3. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
16.4. Analysis
16.4. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
16.5. Analysis
16.5. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
16.6. Analysis
16.6. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic radiolucency.
16.7. Analysis
16.7. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic root resorption.
17.1. Analysis
17.1. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
17.2. Analysis
17.2. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Pain.
17.3. Analysis
17.3. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Soft tissue pathology.
17.4. Analysis
17.4. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathologic mobility.
18.1. Analysis
18.1. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Radiological failure.
18.2. Analysis
18.2. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Pain.
18.3. Analysis
18.3. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Pathological mobility.
18.4. Analysis
18.4. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Pathological radiolucency.
18.5. Analysis
18.5. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
19.1. Analysis
19.1. Analysis
Comparison 19 Metapex versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
19.2. Analysis
19.2. Analysis
Comparison 19 Metapex versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
20.1. Analysis
20.1. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clincal failure.
20.2. Analysis
20.2. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
20.3. Analysis
20.3. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
20.4. Analysis
20.4. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
20.5. Analysis
20.5. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
20.6. Analysis
20.6. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
20.7. Analysis
20.7. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
21.1. Analysis
21.1. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
21.2. Analysis
21.2. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
21.3. Analysis
21.3. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
21.4. Analysis
21.4. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
21.5. Analysis
21.5. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathological mobility.
22.1. Analysis
22.1. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
22.2. Analysis
22.2. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
22.3. Analysis
22.3. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
22.4. Analysis
22.4. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Pathologic mobility.
22.5. Analysis
22.5. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic radiolucency.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever