Eidelman 2001.

Methods	RCT, parallel‐arm Teeth randomly assigned Conducted in the undergraduate and graduate Pediatric Dentistry Clinics of the Hebrew University‐Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, Israel. Operators were authors
Participants	26 children, 45 teeth; 32 teeth from 18 children analysed, mean age 6.4 years, age range 5 to 12 years
Interventions	Group 1:Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 17 teeth (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation not mentioned Haemostasis not mentioned No irrigation Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 5 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by ZOE and IRM dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crown Group 2:Pulpotomy (MTA); n = 15 teeth (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation not mentioned Haemostasis not mentioned No irrigation MTA (3:1 powder:saline ratio) applied after pulpotomy, followed by IRM dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crowns
Outcomes	Signs of failure (internal root resorption, furcation radiolucency, periapical bone destruction, pain, swelling, or sinus tract), internal root resorption, furcation radiolucency, periapical bone destruction, pain, swelling, or sinus tract: evaluation at 13 (6 to 30) months (at tooth level)
Notes	Reasons of dropouts: quotes: "a total of 45 primary molars were pulpotomized in 26 children. Of these 32 teeth in 18 children were available for follow‐up evaluation"; "4 children with 8 teeth had less than 6 months postoperative period at the time of data analysis. 3 children with 5 teeth were not available for follow‐up examination since they moved to another city" Source of funding: not reported, although the MTA material was provided by a colleague at another university in the USA
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Coin toss
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement of Yes or No
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement of Yes or No
Blinding of clinical outcomes assessment	High risk	Quote: "the children were examined clinically at follow‐up by one of the 3 authors who were not blind to which treatment group the subject belong"
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment	Low risk	Quote: "all 3 authors blindly evaluated the radiographs"
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