Pulpotomy versus root canal treatment in permanent teeth with spontaneous pain: comparable clinical and patient outcomes, but insufficient evidence

Abstract

Abstract Design A systematic appraisal and statistical aggregation of primary studies. Data sources Scopus/ELSEVIER, PubMed/MEDLINE, Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science (i.e., Web of Science Core Collection—WoS, Korean Journal Database—KJD, Russian Science Citation Index—RSCI, SciELO Citation Index—SCIELO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library.The complementary searches consisted of OpenGrey, Google Scholar (first 100 returns), Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, DART-Europe E-theses Portal—DEEP, Opening access to UK theses—EThOS. Study selection Human clinical trials studies in English language with at least 10 patients with mature or immature permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain in each arm (i.e., root canal treatment [RCT] and pulpotomy) at the end of the study, comparing the patient- (Primary: survival, pain, tenderness, swelling assessed by clinical history, clinical examination, and pain scales; Secondary: tooth function, need for further intervention, adverse effects; OHRQoL using a validated questionnaire) and clinical-reported outcomes (Primary: emerging apical radiolucency as per intraoral periapical radiograph or limited FOV CBCT scan; Secondary: radiological evidence of continued root formation and presence of sinus tract). Data extraction and synthesis Two independent review authors conducted study selection, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment and a third reviewer was consulted for solving disagreements. When insufficient or absent information, the corresponding author was reached out to for further explanation. The Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) was evaluated the quality of studies.The meta-analysis was performed on a fixed-effect model to estimate pooled effect size such as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed using the R software. The quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach (GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [software], McMaster University, 2015). Results Five primary studies were included. Four studies referred to a multicentre trial assessing postoperative pain and long-term success rate after pulpotomy compared with one-visit RCT in 407 mature molars. The other study was a multicentre trial assessing postoperative pain in 550 mature molars treated with pulpotomy and pulp capping with the calcium-enriched mixture (CEM), pulpotomy and pulp capping with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and one-visit RCT. Both trials primarily reported first molars from young adults. When looking at the results of postoperative pain, all the trials included had a low RoB. However, when evaluating the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the included reports, it was determined that there was a high RoB. The meta-analysis found that the likelihood of experiencing pain (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe) at the 7th postoperative day was not affected by the type of intervention (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63–1.55, I2 = 0%).The study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias domains were used to grade the quality of evidence for postoperative pain between RCT and full pulpotomy, resulting in a ‘High’ grade. In the first year, clinical success was high for both interventions, with a rate of 98%. However, the success rate declined over time, with pulpotomy showing a 78.1% success rate and RCT showing a 75.3% success rate at the 5-year follow up. Conclusions This systematic review was limited by the inclusion of only two trials, indicating a lack of sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Nonetheless, the available clinical data suggests that patient-reported pain outcomes do not differ significantly between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively, and that the long-term clinical success rate of both treatments is comparable, as demonstrated by a single randomized control trial. However, to establish a more robust evidence base, additional high-quality randomized clinical trials, conducted by diverse research groups, are needed in this field. In conclusion, this review underscores the insufficiency of current evidence to draw solid recommendations.