Factors that influence the outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth

Abstract The promotion of minimally invasive treatments focussed on the maintenance of pulp vitality has become a priority area in Endodontics. These vital pulp treatments (VPT) include partial and full pulpotomy, during which diseased coronal pulp tissue is removed prior to placement of a capping biomaterial and restoration. Traditionally, pulpotomies were confined to the treatment of carious primary and traumatized permanent teeth. However, these treatments have now been proposed as definitive solutions for cariously exposed permanent teeth with mild symptoms or even symptoms indicative of irreversible disease. Until recently, it was recommended that carious exposure of mature permanent teeth be managed by root canal treatment. The promotion of pulpotomy as an alternative treatment has opened up a wave of laboratory and clinical research aimed at improving therapies or evaluating clinical outcomes. In modern evidence‐based endodontics, it is imperative that the outcomes of both partial and full pulpotomy are considered and important prognostic factors identified, so that improvements can be made to aid clinical decision‐making and to direct new research. In this narrative review, the outcomes of partial and full pulpotomy are discussed, before analysis of patient, intraoperative and postoperative factors that influence the outcome of the pulpotomy procedure. The review highlights that although partial and full pulpotomy for the treatment of even pulpal disease are highly successful procedures, this is based on low‐quality evidence with a lack of prospective, comparative trials investigating potential prognostic factors. Based on current evidence, it appears that age, gender, tooth type, root development and intraoperative pulpal haemorrhage do not impact significantly on pulpotomy outcome, whilst others such as caries depth, inflammatory status of the pulp, capping material, level of inflammatory pulpal‐biomarkers and the final restoration integrity do. Other factors, including the influence of exposure type, periodontal condition, pulpal lavage, magnification, operator experience, isolation of the operating field and type of pulpotomy, require further experimental investigation before definitive conclusions can be made relating to the success of the pulpotomy procedure. Finally, there is not only a need for future well‐designed prospective research addressing these issues but also a widening of our understanding of outcome to include patient‐reported as well as clinician‐reported outcomes.