, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 64-72

Pulpotomy in primary teeth: Review of the literature according to standardized assessment criteria

Purchase on Springer.com

$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Aim: To assess the relevant literature using a modification of the criteria listed in the introductory paper to this issue [Curzon and Toumba, 2006], and to review several new publications on pulpotomies with different materials and techniques that appeared after previously published reviews. Methods: A search of the relevant literature on pulpotomies was identified through Medline between the years 1966–2005. The search generated a total of 358 citations and sieving of these papers was conducted by examining the paper title and assessing its relevance [Loh et al, 2004]. Only clinical studies (non-specified) and retrospective studies were included for assessment. There were 17 criteria (considered major) weighed 2 points and 8 criteria weighed 1 point. A paper that would score between 38–42 points (90+ %) was assessed as Grade A, a score from 32 to 37 points (75–89%) was Grade B1, and between 25 to 31 points (60–74%) Graded B2. Any other paper that reached 24 points or less (less than 59%) was rated Grade C. Results: Of the 358 papers originally identified 48 clinical trials were evaluated according to the set criteria. There was only one paper grade A, 5 papers graded B1, 3 graded B2 and 39 received a C grade. Formocresol or ferric sulphate medicaments were found to be likely to have similar clinical/radiographic results, and MTA seemed to be a more favourable pulp dressing. Conclusion: No conclusion can be made as to the optimum treatment or technique for pulpally involved primary teeth. More high quality, properly planned prospective studies are necessary to clarify these points.