Moretti 2008.

Methods	RCT, parallel‐arm Teeth randomly assigned Setting not mentioned. Conducted in Brazil. Operators were 3 authors of the article
Participants	23 children, 45 teeth, mean age 6 years, standard deviation age 0.4 years, age range 5 to 9 years
Interventions	Group 1:Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 15 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with slow‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, saline solution Irrigation with saline Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 5 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by ZOE and IRM before being restored with glass‐ionomer cement Group 2:Pulpotomy (MTA); n = 15 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with slow‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, saline solution Irrigation with saline MTA (1:1 ratio powder/saline) applied after pulpotomy, followed by IRM before being restored with glass‐ionomer cement Group 3:Pulpotomy (calcium hydroxide); n = 15 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with slow‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator For haemostasis, saline solution Irrigation with saline CH applied after pulpotomy, followed by IRM before being restored with glass‐ionomer cement
Outcomes	Clinical success (no spontaneous pain, no mobility, no swelling, no fistula and no smell), radiographic success (no internal root resorption, no inter‐radicular bone destruction, no furcation radiolucency or dentine bridge formation), fistula, pathological mobility, inter‐radicular bone destruction, internal root resorption, dentine bridge formation: evaluation at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months (at tooth level)
Notes	Dropouts: "Two children… were lost to follow‐up because they moved to another city" Group 1: 6, 12, 18, 24 months: 1 exfoliation per month Group 2: 18 months: 1 exfoliation Group 3: 12 and 18 months: 1 exfoliation per month; 24 months: 3 exfoliations Exfoliations and extractions were excluded from analysis? No information 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	Low risk	Quote: "...each checkup involved a clinical examination of the pulpotomized teeth, which was performed by two blinded and previously calibrated investigators"
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment	Low risk	Quote: "...each checkup involved a periapical radiographic examination of the pulpotomized teeth, which was performed by two blinded and previously calibrated investigators"
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