Erdem 2011.

Methods	RCT, parallel arm Teeth randomly assigned Setting not mentioned. Conducted in Turkey. Operators were 3 paediatric dentists
Participants	32 children, 100 teeth, mean age 6.2 years, standard deviation age 0.7 years. age range 5 to 7 years
Interventions	Group 1:Pulpotomy (MTA); n = 25 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access not mentioned Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet Irrigation with saline MTA (3:1 powder:saline ratio) applied after pulpotomy, followed by ZOE dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crowns Group 2:Pulpotomy (ferric sulphate); n = 25 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access not mentioned Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet Irrigation with saline 15.5% FS solution applied for 15 seconds after pulpotomy, followed by ZOE dressings before being restored with amalgam Group 3:Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 25 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access not mentioned Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, moistened cotton pellet Irrigation with saline Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 5 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by ZOE dressings before being restored with amalgam Group 4:n = 25 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access not mentioned Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, dry moistened cotton pellet Irrigation with saline ZOE applied after pulpotomy dressings before being restored with amalgam
Outcomes	Clinical failure (pain, swelling, mobility, percussion pain), radiological failure (internal root resorption, and furcation or periapical bone destruction (or both)), signs of failure (pain, swelling, mobility, percussion pain, internal root resorption, and furcation or periapical bone destruction (or both)), internal root resorption, pulp canal obliteration, tenderness to percussion, inter‐radicular bone destruction, physiological root resorption: evaluation at 6, 12 and 24 months (at tooth level)
Notes	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	Low risk	Quote: "the children were examined clinically by 3 experienced pediatric dentists (not the operators) blinded to the technique"
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment	Low risk	Quote: "the children were examined radiographically by 3 experienced pediatric dentists (not the operators) blinded to the technique"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement