Clinical and patient-level predictors of procedure and tooth survival after direct pulp capping

Abstract

Background

Historical reports of unpredictable outcomes associated with vital pulpal therapies, particularly direct pulp capping (DPC), have contributed to clinicians’ skepticism of the procedure. Contemporary reports highlight more predictable outcomes of vital pulpal therapies, inclusive of DPC. There is a dearth of reported patient-centered outcomes of these procedures.

Methods

Insurance claims were used in an observational, retrospective cohort study to evaluate outcomes of DPC performed on permanent teeth. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression. Log-rank tests were used to evaluate unadjusted differences in survival. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the adjusted hazard of adverse event occurrence.

Results

The analytic cohort included 4,136 teeth from 3,716 patients. DPC procedures were identified in public-payer (85.5%) and private-payer (13.4%) insurance claims databases. After DPC, procedure survival rate was 83% and tooth survival rate was 93% during a mean follow-up time of 52 months. Molar tooth type, same-day permanent restoration placement, and amalgam restoration type were significant positive predictors of procedure (DPC) survival. Age was not a statistically significant predictor of procedure survival after controlling for tooth type, gender, time to restoration, and restoration type. Nonmolar tooth type and younger age were significant positive predictors of tooth survival after DPC. Failures were most likely to occur within the first year.

Conclusions

DPC has favorable patient-centered outcomes and contributes to long-term tooth survival.

Practical Implications

The favorable patient-centered outcomes of DPC bolster calls to consider cost-effectiveness and access to care for endodontic procedures.