Saltzman 2005.

Methods	RCT, split‐mouth Teeth randomly assigned Conducted in the University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry Paediatric Clinic, Canada. Operators were 1 of 7 paediatric dental residents, including the primary investigator
Participants	16 children, 52 teeth, mean age 5.1 years, age range 3 to 8 years
Interventions	Group 1:Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 26 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator or slow‐speed bur For haemostasis, no precision Irrigation with saline Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 5 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by ZOE before being restored with stainless‐steel crown Group 2:Pulpotomy (MTA); n = 26 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation: 980 nm diode laser set at 3 W of power with a continuous pulse. Multiple applications For haemostasis, no precision No irrigation MTA applied after pulpotomy, before being restored with glass‐ionomer cement (which was placed over the MTA to achieve a firm foundation and prevent disturbance of the unset MTA material) and stainless‐steel crown
Outcomes	Clinical success (teeth remained asymptomatic, absence of a sinus tract, premature tooth loss), radiographic success (absence of furcal radiolucencies, pathological root resorption, damage to succedaneous follicle, or a combination), signs of success (teeth remained asymptomatic, absence of a sinus tract, absence of furcal radiolucencies, pathological root resorption, damage to succedaneous follicle and premature tooth loss, or a combination), furcal radiolucency, periapical radiolucency, pathological root resorption, root resorption in relation to contralateral: evaluation at (mean ± standard deviation) 2.3 ± 2.1, 5.2 ± 1.9, 9.5 ± 2.3 and 15.7 ±3 months (at tooth level)
Notes	4 follow‐up visits (mean ± standard deviation): first: 2.3 ± 2.1, second: 5.2 ± 1.9, third: 9.5 ± 2.3, fourth: 15.7 ± 3.0 months Source of funding: quote: "The investigators wish to thank BioLitec and Lasers in Dentistry for the donation of the diode laser, and Dentsply for the donation of the MTA. Funding for this study was provided by the University of Toronto and Alpha Omega. The authors of this study do not have any financial interest in the commercial products used" Comment: Alpha Omega International Dental Fraternity is a Jewish philanthropic charity and presents no apparent conflict of interests
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
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Blinding of clinical outcomes assessment	High risk	Quote: "clinical outcome assessments were made by the primary investigator at each follow‐up visit"
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment	Low risk	Quote: "radiographic outcome assessments were made by the primary investigator and one independent experienced clinician who was blind to the treatment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Proportion of missing outcomes > 10% children randomly assigned
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement