From: Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Study | Country | Design | Age (years) | Treatment | Group | Restoration | Analysis unit | Follow-up (months) | Number of analyzed unit | Clinical success rate | Radiographic success rate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nosrat 2006 | Iran | RCT, Parallel | 6–10 | Full pulpotomy | CEM (n = 59) MTA (n = 59) | GIC | Root | 6 | CEM (n = 55) MTA (n = 55a) | CEM (100%) MTA (100%) | CEM (100%) MTA (100%) |
12 | CEM (n = 57) MTA (n = 55b) | CEM (100%) MTA (100%) | CEM (100%) MTA (100%) | ||||||||
Keswani 2014 | India | RCT, Parallel | 6–12 | Full pulpotomy | PRF (n = 31) MTA (n = 31) | Amalgam SSC | Tooth | 6 | PRF (n = 30) MTA (n = 29) | PRF (100%) MTA (100%) | PRF (100%) MTA (100%) |
12 | PRF (n = 29) MTA (n = 27) | PRF (100%) MTA (100%) | PRF (100%) MTA (100%) | ||||||||
24 | PRF (n = 27) MTA (n = 26) | PRF (100%) MTA (100%) | PRF (100%) MTA (100%) | ||||||||
Özgür 2017 | Turkey | RCT, Parallel | 6–13 | Partial pulpotomy | MTA (n = 40) CH (n = 40) | Composite resin | Tooth | 6,12 | CH (n = 39) MTA (n = 40) | MTA (97.5%) CH (97.4%) | MTA (97.5%) CH (97.4%) |
18, 24 | CH (n = 39) MTA (n = 37) | MTA (97.3%) CH (97.4%) | MTA (97.3%) CH (97.4%) | ||||||||
Eppa 2018 | India | RCT, Parallel | 6–14 | Full pulpotomy | MTA (n = 20) TAP (n = 20) AR (n = 20) | GIC SSC | Tooth | 1 | MTA (n = 20) TAP (n = 20) AR (n = 20) | MTA (100%) TAP (100%) AR (100%) | MTA (100%) TAP (100%) AR (100%) |
3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 | MTA (n = 20) TAP (n = 20) AR (n = 20) | MTA (100%) TAP (100%) AR (80%) | MTA (100%) TAP (100%) AR (80%) | ||||||||
El-Meligy 2006 | Egypt | RCT, split-mouth | 6–12 | Partial pulpotomy | MTA (n = 15) CH (n = 15) | Amalgam Composite resin | Tooth | 3, 6 | MTA (n = 15) CH (n = 15) | MTA (100%) CH (100%) | MTA (100%) CH (100%) |
12 | MTA (n = 15) CH (n = 15) | MTA (100%) CH (86.7%) | MTA (100%) CH (86.7%) |