Vital Pulp Therapy in Permanent Mature Posterior Teeth with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Systematic Review of Treatment Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in permanent mature teeth is a common indication for nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT), but contemporary studies have reported on vital pulp therapy (VPT) applied in such teeth as a less invasive treatment. This systematic review assessed the outcomes of VPT, including partial and full pulpotomy performed with hydraulic calcium silicate cements (HCSCs) in permanent mature posterior teeth diagnosed with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. Materials and Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The search strategy included PubMed®, EMBASE, Cochrane library and grey literature electronic databases. The quality assessment of the identified studies followed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias, ROBINS-I and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale tools. Results: The search of primary databases identified 142 articles, of which 9 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective cohort studies were selected for review. The risk-of-bias was assessed as ‘high’ or ‘serious’, ‘fair’, and ‘low’ for three, seven and two articles, respectively. One to five years after VPT using HCSCs, the success rates mostly ranged from 78 to 90%. Based on two articles, the outcomes of the VPT and NSRCT were comparable at one and five years. Despite the necessity for the intra-operative pulp assessment in VPT procedures, the majority of the studies did not fully report on this step or on the time needed to achieve hemostasis. Small sample sizes, of under 23 teeth, were reported in three studies. Conclusions: The reviewed 12 articles reported favorable outcomes of the VPT performed with HCSCs in permanent mature posterior teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with radiographic success in the range of 81 to 90%. Two articles suggested comparable outcomes of the VPT and root canal treatment. Universal case selection and outcome criteria needs to be established for VPT when considered as an alternative to NSRCT. This evidence supports the need for further research comparing longer-term outcomes of both of the treatment modalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".