Lourenço 2015a.
Methods | RCT, parallel arm Teeth randomly assigned Setting and operators not mentioned |
|
Participants | 22 children, 30 teeth, mean age 6.6 years, standard deviation age 1.4 years. | |
Interventions |
Group 1:Pulpotomy (Portland cement, PC); n = 10 (1 visit)
Group 2:Pulpotomy (PC + iodoform, PC + CHI₃); n = 10 (1 visit)
Group 3:Pulpotomy (PC + zirconium oxide, PC + ZrO₂); n = 10 (1 visit)
|
|
Outcomes | Clinical success (no swelling, fistula, spontaneous pain, mobility), radiological success (no furcation radiolucency, internal root resorption, external root resorption): evaluation at 6, 12 and 24 months (at tooth level) | |
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computerised random‐number generator |
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: "...at each follow‐up examination two investigators who were blinded to the identification of the medicaments ... performed clinical... examination of the pulpotomized teeth" |
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment | Low risk | quote: "...at each follow‐up examination two investigators who were blinded to the identification of the medicaments ... performed... periapical examination of the pulpotomized teeth" |
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 |