Background: Root canal therapy (RCT) and pulpotomy are two common treatment modalities for managing dental pulp infections, but their comparative effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes remains unclear. This root canal therapy (RCT) aimed to assess and compare patient outcomes between teeth treated with traditional RCT and pulpotomy.
Materials and methods: In this single-center RCT, a total of 120 patients presenting with symptomatic dental pulp infections were randomly assigned to either the RCT group or the pulpotomy group. The RCT group received conventional root canal treatment, which involved complete removal of infected pulp and obturation of the root canals. The pulpotomy group underwent a procedure where only the coronal pulp tissue was removed, followed by the placement of a medicament. Pain levels, infection resolution, and tooth survival were assessed at 6 months and 1 year posttreatment.
Results: At the 6-month follow-up, patients in the RCT group reported significantly lower pain scores (2.5 ± 0.8) compared with the pulpotomy group (4.3 ± 1.2, P < 0.001). Infection resolution was also higher in the RCT group (92%) compared with the pulpotomy group (78%) at 6 months. Tooth survival rates at 1 year were significantly higher in the RCT group (95%) compared with the pulpotomy group (81%, P < 0.05).
Conclusion: This RCT demonstrates that traditional RCT is superior to pulpotomy in terms of pain reduction, infection resolution, and tooth survival. Patients who underwent RCT experienced less pain, faster infection resolution, and better tooth survival rates compared with those who received pulpotomy. These findings support the use of RCT as the preferred treatment modality for dental pulp infections.
Keywords: Dental pulp infection; patient outcomes; pulpotomy; randomized controlled trial; root canal therapy.
Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.