Effectiveness of vital pulp treatment in managing nontraumatic pulpitis associated with no or nonspontaneous pain: A systematic review

• Published in: International endodontic journal Vol. 56; no. S3; pp. 340 - 354
• Main Authors: Jakovljevic, Aleksandar, Jaćimović, Jelena, Aminoshariae, Anita, Fransson, Helena
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.10.2023
• Subjects: Clinical trials; Dental caries; Dental Caries - therapy; Dental Pulp; dental pulp capping; Dental Pulp Capping - methods; dental pulp exposure; endodontics; Humans; Pain; Patients; pulpectomy; Pulpitis - therapy; pulpotomy; Pulpotomy - methods; Root Canal Therapy; Survival; Systematic review; Teeth; Treatment Outcome; dental caries; endodontics; dental pulp exposure; pulpotomy; pulpectomy; dental pulp capping
• ISSN: 0143-2885; 1365-2591; 1365-2591
• DOI: 10.1111/iej.13776

Background The exposed pulp has been the topic of numerous studies, but well‐designed and well‐executed comparative trials on the outcome and treatment of these teeth have been limited. Objectives This study was conducted to answer the following questions: in patients with nontraumatic pulpitis associated with no or nonspontaneous pain in permanent teeth, (i) is direct pulp capping or pulpotomy (partial/full) as effective as selective or stepwise caries removal [Population/participants, Intervention(s), Comparator(s)/control, Outcome(s) (PICO) 1], (ii) is pulpotomy (partial/full) as effective as direct pulp capping (PICO 2) and (iii) is pulpotomy (partial/full) as effective as a pulpectomy (PICO 3), in terms of a combination of patient and clinical reported outcomes, with ‘tooth survival’ as the most critical outcome? Methods A literature search was conducted using Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to November 3rd 2021. Grey literature and contents of the major subject journals were examined. Eligibility criteria followed the PICO questions. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and appraisal; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed by the revised Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomized trials. Results Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the review. No study fulfilled the criteria to answer PICO 1. There were no significant differences in the reported outcomes between investigated treatments in all included RCTs. None of the included studies reported the most critical outcome ‘tooth survival’. A high loss of patients during the follow‐up period was observed. Discussion Although a few studies fulfilled strict eligible criteria, the results of this systematic review clearly highlight a paucity of available evidence. At the present time, clinical decisions cannot be substantiated by direct comparative trials. Conclusions Based on limited evidence, this systematic review discovered no significant differences in effectiveness between compared vital pulp treatments in managing nontraumatic pulpitis associated with no or nonspontaneous pain. Further high‐quality RCTs are necessary to investigate the effectiveness of direct pulp capping or pulpotomy (partial/full) compared to selective or stepwise caries removal. Registration PROSPERO database (CRD42021259742).