European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 64–72

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


DOI: 10.1007/BF03320817

Cite this article as:
Fuks, A.B., Papagiannoulis, L. & Duggal, M.S. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent (2006) 1: 64. doi:10.1007/BF03320817


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.

Key words

Primary teeth pulpotomy dressing materials 

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Pediatric DentistryHebrew University, Hadassah School of Dental MedicineJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Dept. of Pediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryAthens UniversityAthensGreece
  3. 3.Dept. Paediatric dentistryUniversity of LeedsEngland

Personalised recommendations