Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35271753›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of paediatric dentistry2022

Success of medicaments and techniques for pulpotomy of primary teeth: An overview of systematic reviews.

Nitesh Tewari, Shubhi Goel, Vijay Prakash Mathur, Anne C O'Connell, Riya Marie Johnson, Morankar Rahul, Farheen Sultan, Mridula Goswami, Sukeshana Srivastav, Priyanshi Ritwik

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of paediatric dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Nitesh TewariDivision of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6747-5110
Shubhi GoelDivision of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7315-1545
Vijay Prakash MathurDivision of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2710-1894
Anne C O'ConnellDublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College (University of Dublin), Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1495-3983
Riya Marie JohnsonDivision of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Morankar RahulDivision of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2924-8857
Farheen SultanDivision of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Deformities, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Mridula GoswamiPedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0211-5210
Sukeshana SrivastavDivision of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Deformities, Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3841-6146
Priyanshi RitwikUniversity of Texas Houston School of Dentistry, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0114-9619
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INDublin Dental University Hospital · IEMaulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences · INUniversity of Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulpotomy is an effective, vital pulp therapy procedure for caries-affected or traumatized primary teeth. Though its efficacy is widely accepted, the superiority of medicaments and techniques remains debatable.

aimThe aims of this review were to compare the success rates of various pulpotomy medicaments or techniques, assess the methodological quality of reviews, and grade the level of evidence for each comparison.

designThis review followed the principles of evidence-based medicine and recommendations for the overview of systematic reviews. An a priori protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021244489). A comprehensive literature search was performed by two reviewers, and studies were selected from various databases according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers independently used a self-designed pilot-tested form to extract data from the selected studies. A quality analysis was performed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) and the ROBIS tool. Reporting characteristics and overlap of the primary studies were also assessed. We used modified Köhler's criteria for evaluating the quality of evidence for outcomes of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

resultsThe scrutiny of 62 full-text articles resulted in the inclusion of eight systematic reviews. The quality of four of the reviews was found to be critically low, and the overlap of primary studies in the meta-analyses was found to be high. Pulpotomy medicaments/techniques, except calcium hydroxide, had success rates of more than 80% for all domains and time periods. Most of the comparisons revealed no differences in the clinical, radiographic, or overall success rates. Mineral trioxide aggregate, however, was found to have better radiographic and overall success rates than calcium hydroxide at periods greater than 12 and 18 months. It also had a greater radiographic success rate than full-strength/1:5 diluted and full-strength formocresol at 24 months. Formocresol was found to have better overall success rates than calcium hydroxide at all time periods and better radiographic success rates at 12 months. Only 12 of the 63 comparisons had suggestive or weak evidence, whereas all others had either negligible evidence or insufficient data.

conclusionsThe pulpotomy medicaments/techniques, except calcium hydroxide, showed success rates of more than 80%, whereas most comparisons revealed no differences. Mineral trioxide aggregate, however, was found to be better than calcium hydroxide and formocresol in several respects. This study highlights the lack of evidence regarding the choice of pulpotomy agents for the treatment of caries-affected primary teeth and elucidates the domains that require primary studies in the future.

Indexed as

Dental CariesPulpotomyCalcium HydroxideFormocresolsHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicTooth, DeciduousCalcium HydroxideformocresolFormocresolsApexificationlaserprimary toothpulpal medicamentssystematic reviewtherapy

Identifiers

PMID35271753
PMCPMC9790730
OpenAlexW4221060436

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.