{"title":"Selective caries removal or pulpotomy: which approach is better for ‘deep’ carious lesions?","authors":"Neeraj Gugnani, Shalini Gugnani","doi":"10.1038/s41432-026-01235-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chew JJR, Tan SHX, Chua SKX, Lui JN, Sim YF, Yu VSH. Three-Year Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Selective Caries Removal and Full Pulpotomy for Extensive Caries: An Exploratory Randomised Controlled Trial. Int Endod J. 2026;59:439–53. Epub 2025 Nov 25. PMID: 41288117; PMCID: PMC12884239. The aim of the study was to compare selective caries removal (SCR) with full pulpotomy for managing deeply carious vital permanent teeth. The primary objective was to evaluate pulp survival and the need for further intervention over a 3-year period, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. This was an exploratory, two-arm, randomized clinical trial conducted on mature permanent teeth with deep or extremely deep carious lesions. A total of 120 vital teeth with no signs of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or apical pathology were selected from 101 patients. They were randomly assigned to receive either SCR or a full pulpotomy. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier plots, while Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on survival over time. Economic evaluation was also conducted from both healthcare and societal perspectives. At the 3-year follow-up, 44/58 teeth in the SCR group and 37/55 teeth in the pulpotomy group were available for analysis. At the end of the study period, overall, 79% of treated teeth did not require further intervention. Failures were higher in the SCR group than in the pulpotomy group (29.5% vs 10.8%; p = 0.039), and survival rates were lower in the SCR group (74.1% vs 89.1%; p = 0.041 adjusted rates). Time-to-event analysis suggested a higher hazard of failure with SCR, although this was not statistically significant (adjusted HR = 2.58; 95% CI 0.80–8.30). Full pulpotomy, despite higher initial costs, was more cost-effective, becoming favorable at willingness-to-pay thresholds of approximately US$917 and US$928 per RCT/extraction avoided, from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Full pulpotomy appears more effective than SCR in extremely deep lesions, while outcomes in deep lesions remain comparable. However, a large proportion of lesions were extremely deep, which may have influenced these findings.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"27 3","pages":"61-62"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-026-01235-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Chew JJR, Tan SHX, Chua SKX, Lui JN, Sim YF, Yu VSH. Three-Year Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Selective Caries Removal and Full Pulpotomy for Extensive Caries: An Exploratory Randomised Controlled Trial. Int Endod J. 2026;59:439–53. Epub 2025 Nov 25. PMID: 41288117; PMCID: PMC12884239. The aim of the study was to compare selective caries removal (SCR) with full pulpotomy for managing deeply carious vital permanent teeth. The primary objective was to evaluate pulp survival and the need for further intervention over a 3-year period, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. This was an exploratory, two-arm, randomized clinical trial conducted on mature permanent teeth with deep or extremely deep carious lesions. A total of 120 vital teeth with no signs of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or apical pathology were selected from 101 patients. They were randomly assigned to receive either SCR or a full pulpotomy. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier plots, while Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on survival over time. Economic evaluation was also conducted from both healthcare and societal perspectives. At the 3-year follow-up, 44/58 teeth in the SCR group and 37/55 teeth in the pulpotomy group were available for analysis. At the end of the study period, overall, 79% of treated teeth did not require further intervention. Failures were higher in the SCR group than in the pulpotomy group (29.5% vs 10.8%; p = 0.039), and survival rates were lower in the SCR group (74.1% vs 89.1%; p = 0.041 adjusted rates). Time-to-event analysis suggested a higher hazard of failure with SCR, although this was not statistically significant (adjusted HR = 2.58; 95% CI 0.80–8.30). Full pulpotomy, despite higher initial costs, was more cost-effective, becoming favorable at willingness-to-pay thresholds of approximately US$917 and US$928 per RCT/extraction avoided, from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Full pulpotomy appears more effective than SCR in extremely deep lesions, while outcomes in deep lesions remain comparable. However, a large proportion of lesions were extremely deep, which may have influenced these findings.
评论:周俊杰,谭世贤,蔡世贤,吕建军,沈云峰,余文士。选择性龋齿切除和全髓切开术治疗大面积龋齿的三年临床和经济评价:一项探索性随机对照试验。[j] .现代医学[j]; 2009;59:439-53。Epub 2025 11月25日。PMID: 41288117;PMCID: PMC12884239。目的:本研究的目的是比较选择性除龋(SCR)与全髓切开术治疗深度蛀牙的重要恒牙。主要目的是评估牙髓存活和3年内进一步干预的需要,并评估两种干预的成本效益。方法:这是一项探索性、双组、随机临床试验,对深或极深龋病的成熟恒牙进行了研究。从101例患者中选取无症状性不可逆性牙髓炎或根尖病理征象的活牙120颗。他们被随机分配接受SCR或全髓切开术。分别在6个月、1年和3年进行临床和影像学评估。采用Kaplan-Meier图进行生存分析,Cox比例风险回归评估治疗对长期生存的影响。还从保健和社会的角度进行了经济评价。结果:随访3年,SCR组有44/58颗牙可供分析,切髓组有37/55颗牙可供分析。在研究期结束时,总的来说,79%的治疗过的牙齿不需要进一步的干预。SCR组的失败率高于切髓组(29.5% vs 10.8%, p = 0.039), SCR组的生存率低于切髓组(74.1% vs 89.1%, p = 0.041)。时间到事件分析表明SCR失败的风险更高,尽管这没有统计学意义(调整后的HR = 2.58; 95% CI 0.80-8.30)。尽管初始费用较高,但全髓切开术更具成本效益,从医疗保健和社会的角度来看,在每个随机对照试验/拔牙分别约为917美元和928美元的支付意愿阈值时变得有利。结论:在极深病变中,全髓切开术似乎比SCR更有效,而深度病变的结果仍具有可比性。然而,很大一部分病变非常深,这可能影响了这些结果。
期刊介绍:
Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.