Alaçam 2009.

Methods	RCT, parallel‐arm Children randomly assigned Conducted in the University of Gazi Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Turkey. Operators were undergraduate dental students supervised by members of senior staff clinics
Participants	105 children, 105 teeth, mean age 6.4 years, age range 4 to 8 years
Interventions	Group 1:Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 35 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet with saline No irrigation Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 3 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by 1 non‐specified medicament dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crowns Group 2:Pulpotomy (calcium hydroxide); n = 35 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet with saline No irrigation CH applied after pulpotomy, followed by one non‐specified medicament dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crowns Group 3:Pulpotomy (calcium hydroxide/iodoform)n = 35 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet with saline No irrigation CH/iodoform applied after pulpotomy, followed by 1 non‐specified medicament dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crowns
Outcomes	Clinical success (teeth remained asymptomatic, no tenderness to percussion, no sinus tract or no premature tooth loss), radiological success (no furcal or periapical radiolucencies or internal or external root resorption), tenderness to percussion, swelling, spontaneous pain, fistula, internal root resorption, external root resorption, periapical radiolucency, furcal radiolucency, widened periodontal ligament: evaluation at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (at tooth level)
Notes	Quote: "9 children, with 9 pulpotomized molars, failed to return for evaluations and were excluded from the study" "5 bleeding cases were excluded from analysis" Group 1 ‐ received intervention, n = 35; no exclusions Group 2 ‐ received intervention, n = 33; excluded due to uncontrolled bleeding from paste placement n = 2 Group 3 ‐ received intervention, n = 32; excluded due to uncontrolled bleeding from paste placement n = 3 Source of funding: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
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	Low risk	Quote: "Radiographic outcome assessments were made by the primary investigator and 1 independent experienced clinician who was blind to the treatment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Proportion of missing outcomes < 10% of children randomly assigned
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement