Zealand 2010.

Methods	RCT, parallel‐arm Teeth randomly assigned Conducted in the Children's Clinic of the University of Michigan School of Dentistry, USA. Operator not mentioned
Participants	152 children, 252 teeth, mean age 5.5 years, standard deviation age 1.5 years, age range 2.5 to 10 years
Interventions	Group 1:Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 133 (1 visit) Rubber dam or cotton rolls Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with slow speed bur and excavator For haemostasis, cotton pellet No irrigation Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 5 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by IRM before being restored with stainless‐steel crown Group 2:Pulpotomy (MTA); n = 119 (1 visit) Rubber dam or cotton rolls Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with slow speed bur and excavator For haemostasis, cotton pellet No irrigation Grey MTA (MTA 3:1 powder/saline ratio) applied after pulpotomy, followed by IRM before being restored with stainless‐steel crown
Outcomes	Clinical success (not clearly defined), radiographic failure (internal root resorption, external root resorption, internal root resorption with perforated form, periradicular lesion), score 2‐1 (clinically), score 2‐2 (clinically), score 2‐3 (clinically), score 2‐4 (clinically), internal resorption, internal resorption with perforated form, external resorption, periodontal ligament widening, pulp canal obliteration, dentine bridge formation, score 7‐1 (rx), score 7‐2 (rx), score 7‐3 (rx), score 7‐4 (rx): evaluation at 6 months (at tooth level)
Notes	203/252 teeth were available for the 6‐month evaluation resulting in 19% lost at follow‐up Source of funding: "This study was supported by Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research and Delta Dental Foundation of Michigan. The authors declare no conflict of interest"
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)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization of the medicament used was done by an envelope draw"
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 blinded clinical examination was performed by 1 to 19 operators who were calibrated to the clinical scoring criteria"
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment	Low risk	Quote: "All radiographs were viewed by 4 blinded, calibrated evaluators"
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