The effectiveness of partial pulpotomy compared with full pulpotomy in managing deep caries in vital permanent teeth with a diagnosis of non-traumatic pulpitis.

Abstract

Pulpitis may be pain free or alternatively characterized by mild to severe pain and associated symptoms. Evidence has recently emerged that patients presenting with carious pulp exposure range of symptoms can be treated effectively with pulpotomy. The current systematic review aimed to answer the following research question: "In patients with deep caries lesions in permanent teeth associated with no symptoms, reversible pulpitis or signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis (P), is partial pulpotomy (I) as effective as full pulpotomy (C), in terms of a combination of patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), with "tooth survival" as the most critical outcome? The systematic literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: OVID, Scopus, PubMed (Including MEDLINE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) supplemented with Grey literature and hand searching of relevant journals. The English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between partial and full/complete were included. After a structured literature search, two authors independently performed study selection, extracted data and performed a risk of bias assessment; a third reviewer resolved disagreements. As there were only two studies with different exclusion criteria, no meta-analysis was performed and the quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. After study selection a total of two randomised clinical trials with a total of 156 teeth were included both for the management of teeth with irreversible pulpitis. There were no studies for asymptomatic teeth or teeth with reversible pulpitis. A "Low" risk of bias was noted for both studies with a high level of overall evidence. A meta-analysis was not carried out due to differences in inclusion criteria between the studies related principally to caries depth. Both studies reported a high rate of clinical success for pulpotomy with a pooled unadjusted success rate for full pulpotomy of 90% and 83% partial pulpotomy of at 1-year; however, no significant difference between the treatments was noted in either study. There was significantly reduced postoperative pain reported in the full pulpotomy group over 1-week compared with the partial pulpotomy in one but not in the other study. Pulpotomy as a definitive treatment modality is as effective in managing teeth exhibiting signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis and challenges the established protocols to manage this condition. Although based on only two RCTs with a limited number of patients, no difference was shown in terms of clinical or radiographic outcome or postoperative pain between groups. Further well designed randomised clinical trials of longer duration are required in this area to improve the evidence available. There is no consistent difference in patient-reported pain between partial and full pulpotomy at day 7 postoperatively and the clinical success rate was similar after 1 year for both treatment modalities.