↓ Skip to main content

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003220.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron, Anne-Marie Glenny, Frédéric Courson, Pierre Durieux, Michele Muller-Bolla, Helene Fron Chabouis

Abstract

In children, dental caries (tooth decay) is among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. Pulp interventions are indicated for extensive tooth decay. Depending on the severity of the disease, three pulp treatment techniques are available: direct pulp capping, pulpotomy and pulpectomy. After treatment, the cavity is filled with a medicament. Materials commonly used include mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium hydroxide, formocresol or ferric sulphate.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014 when insufficient evidence was found to clearly identify one superior pulpotomy medicament and technique. To assess the effects of different pulp treatment techniques and associated medicaments for the treatment of extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 August 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 August 2017) and the Web of Science (1945 to 10 August 2017). OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions that combined a pulp treatment technique with a medicament or device in children with extensive decay in the dental pulp of their primary teeth. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed 'Risk of bias'. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information when necessary. The primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure, as defined in trials, at six, 12 and 24 months. We performed data synthesis with pair-wise meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using I² coefficients. We included 40 new trials bringing the total to 87 included trials (7140 randomised teeth) for this update. All were small, single-centre trials (median number of randomised teeth = 68). All trials were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias.The 87 trials examined 125 different comparisons: 75 comparisons of different medicaments or techniques for pulpotomy; 25 comparisons of different medicaments for pulpectomy; four comparisons of pulpotomy and pulpectomy; and 21 comparisons of different medicaments for direct pulp capping.The proportion of clinical failures and radiological failures was low in all trials. In many trials, there were either no clinical failures or no radiographic failures in either study arm.For pulpotomy, we assessed three comparisons as providing moderate-quality evidence. Compared with formocresol, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with a statistically significant difference at 12 months for clinical failure and at six, 12 and 24 months for radiological failure (12 trials, 740 participants). Compared with calcium hydroxide, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with statistically significant differences for clinical failure at 12 and 24 months. MTA also appeared to reduce radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (four trials, 150 participants) (low-quality evidence). When comparing calcium hydroxide with formocresol, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of formocresol for clinical failure at six and 12 months and radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (six trials (one with no failures), 332 participants).Regarding pulpectomy, we found moderate-quality evidence for two comparisons. The comparison between Metapex and zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) paste was inconclusive, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions for failure at 6 or 12 months (two trials, 62 participants). Similarly inconclusive, there was no clear evidence of a difference in failure between Endoflas and ZOE (outcomes measured at 6 months; two trials, 80 participants). There was low-quality evidence of a difference in failure at 12 months that suggested ZOE paste may be better than Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) paste (two trials, 161 participants).Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies undertaking the same comparison limits any interpretation. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low or very low for all comparisons. One trial appeared to favour formocresol over calcium hydroxide; however, there are safety concerns about formocresol. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth is generally successful. Many included trials had no clinical or radiological failures in either trial arm, and the overall proportion of failures was low. Any future trials in this area would require a very large sample size and follow up of a minimum of one year.The evidence suggests MTA may be the most efficacious medicament to heal the root pulp after pulpotomy of a deciduous tooth. As MTA is relatively expensive, future research could be undertaken to confirm if Biodentine, enamel matrix derivative, laser treatment or Ankaferd Blood Stopper are acceptable second choices, and whether, where none of these treatments can be used, application of sodium hypochlorite is the safest option. Formocresol, though effective, has known concerns about toxicity.Regarding pulpectomy, there is no conclusive evidence that one medicament or technique is superior to another, and so the choice of medicament remains at the clinician's discretion. Research could be undertaken to confirm if ZOE paste is more effective than Vitapex and to evaluate other alternatives.Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies and low quality of the evidence limited interpretation. Formocresol may be more successful than calcium hydroxide; however, given its toxicity, any future research should focus on alternatives.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 227 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 25%
Unspecified 42 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Student > Postgraduate 19 8%
Other 66 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 147 63%
Unspecified 57 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 14 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2019.
All research outputs
#431,405
of 13,500,950 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,292
of 10,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,409
of 270,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.