Trial reportEvidence-based dentistry2026
Selective caries removal or pulpotomy: which approach is better for 'deep' carious lesions?
Trial report in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onChew JJR, Tan SHX, Chua SKX, Lui JN, Sim YF, Yu VSH. Three-Year Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Selective Caries Removal and Full Pulpotomy for Extensive Caries: An Exploratory Randomised Controlled Trial. Int Endod J. 2026;59:439-53. Epub 2025 Nov 25. PMID: 41288117; PMCID: PMC12884239.
aimThe aim of the study was to compare selective caries removal (SCR) with full pulpotomy for managing deeply carious vital permanent teeth. The primary objective was to evaluate pulp survival and the need for further intervention over a 3-year period, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of both interventions.
methodsThis was an exploratory, two-arm, randomized clinical trial conducted on mature permanent teeth with deep or extremely deep carious lesions. A total of 120 vital teeth with no signs of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or apical pathology were selected from 101 patients. They were randomly assigned to receive either SCR or a full pulpotomy. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier plots, while Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on survival over time. Economic evaluation was also conducted from both healthcare and societal perspectives.
resultsAt the 3-year follow-up, 44/58 teeth in the SCR group and 37/55 teeth in the pulpotomy group were available for analysis. At the end of the study period, overall, 79% of treated teeth did not require further intervention. Failures were higher in the SCR group than in the pulpotomy group (29.5% vs 10.8%; p = 0.039), and survival rates were lower in the SCR group (74.1% vs 89.1%; p = 0.041 adjusted rates). Time-to-event analysis suggested a higher hazard of failure with SCR, although this was not statistically significant (adjusted HR = 2.58; 95% CI 0.80-8.30). Full pulpotomy, despite higher initial costs, was more cost-effective, becoming favorable at willingness-to-pay thresholds of approximately US$917 and US$928 per RCT/extraction avoided, from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively.
conclusionsFull pulpotomy appears more effective than SCR in extremely deep lesions, while outcomes in deep lesions remain comparable. However, a large proportion of lesions were extremely deep, which may have influenced these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42410205What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.