Marjorie Zanini1, Martine Hennequin2, Pierre-Yves Cousson3. 1. Clermont University, University of Auvergne, Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Groupe Hospitalier Pitié Salpêtrière, Service Odonto-stomatologie et Chirurgie Maxillo-faciale, APHP, Paris, France; Université Denis Diderot Paris7, UFR Odontologie de Garanciére Paris, Paris, France. 2. Clermont University, University of Auvergne, Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique, Clermont-Ferrand, France; CHU of Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Electronic address: martine.hennequin@udamail.fr. 3. Clermont University, University of Auvergne, Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique, Clermont-Ferrand, France; CHU of Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: During the past decade, with a view to understanding pulp biology better and developing bioactive materials, pulpotomy has been reinvestigated as a definitive treatment in mature permanent teeth. Pulp chamber pulpotomy or coronal pulpotomy is widely used in deciduous and immature permanent teeth, and there is thus a need for trials to evaluate the outcome of pulpotomy as a therapeutic procedure on mature permanent teeth in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. This study aimed to review publications reporting the outcomes of pulpotomy when indicated as a definitive treatment in mature permanent teeth and to discuss the relevance of the criteria that could be used in clinical practice or research. METHODS: A review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist was conducted on publications found by both PubMed and backward research. RESULTS: Seven clinical trials, 9 cohort studies, and 15 cases reports have been included. Overall, goals, criteria for inclusion, and criteria for outcomes of pulpotomy varied among studies. The relevance and the reliability of the success or failure criteria of pulpotomy were discussed regarding the possible evolution of the radicular pulpal status that could be expected after pulpotomy. Finally, criteria for the evaluation of the outcome of pulpotomy are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of standardized outcome criteria would facilitate further meta-analyses, aiming to assess whether pulpotomy should be considered as a true alternative therapy to root treatment.
INTRODUCTION: During the past decade, with a view to understanding pulp biology better and developing bioactive materials, pulpotomy has been reinvestigated as a definitive treatment in mature permanent teeth. Pulp chamber pulpotomy or coronal pulpotomy is widely used in deciduous and immature permanent teeth, and there is thus a need for trials to evaluate the outcome of pulpotomy as a therapeutic procedure on mature permanent teeth in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. This study aimed to review publications reporting the outcomes of pulpotomy when indicated as a definitive treatment in mature permanent teeth and to discuss the relevance of the criteria that could be used in clinical practice or research. METHODS: A review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist was conducted on publications found by both PubMed and backward research. RESULTS: Seven clinical trials, 9 cohort studies, and 15 cases reports have been included. Overall, goals, criteria for inclusion, and criteria for outcomes of pulpotomy varied among studies. The relevance and the reliability of the success or failure criteria of pulpotomy were discussed regarding the possible evolution of the radicular pulpal status that could be expected after pulpotomy. Finally, criteria for the evaluation of the outcome of pulpotomy are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of standardized outcome criteria would facilitate further meta-analyses, aiming to assess whether pulpotomy should be considered as a true alternative therapy to root treatment.
Authors: Julien Beauquis; Hugo M Setbon; Charles Dassargues; Pierre Carsin; Sam Aryanpour; Jean-Pierre Van Nieuwenhuysen; Julian G Leprince Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Nicolas Decerle; Pierre-Yves Cousson; Emmanuel Nicolas; Martine Hennequin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marie-Laure Munoz-Sanchez; Natacha Linas; Nicolas Decerle; Emmanuel Nicolas; Martine Hennequin; Pierre-Yves Cousson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 3.390