Aeinehchi 2007.

Methods	RCT, parallel‐arm Children randomly assigned Conducted in the dental clinic of Azad University, Tehran, Iran. Operators were a dentist under the supervision of an endodontist
Participants	126 children, 126 teeth, mean age 6.5 years, standard deviation age 1.16 years, age range 5 to 9 years
Interventions	Group 1: Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 75 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access: not mentioned Pulp access with high‐speed burr Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet with saline Irrigation with saline Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 5 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by zonalin dressings before being restored with amalgam or glass‐ionomer cement Group 2: Pulpotomy (MTA); n = 51 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access: not mentioned Pulp access with high‐speed burr Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet with saline Irrigation with saline MTA applied after pulpotomy, followed by amalgam
Outcomes	Clinical failure (spontaneous pain, swelling, pain on palpation or percussion and sinus tract formation, periodontal ligament widening, furcal radiolucency or apical radiolucency), pathological root resorption: evaluation at 3 and 6 months (at tooth level) Radiological failure (pathological root resorption, periodontal ligament widening and apical, lateral or furcal radiolucency): evaluation at 3 months (at tooth level)
Notes	Reasons for dropouts: quote: "18 in the FC group and 8 in the MTA group did not attend the 3‐month follow‐up" Comment: 55 participants excluded: not meeting inclusion (39 children), refused to participate (12 children), other reasons (4 children) Source of funding: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number producing system
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Blinding of clinical outcomes assessment	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Proportion of missing outcomes > 10% of children randomly assigned
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement