A S Khalil, R S Alrehaili
Pulp therapy may offer better OHRQoL outcomes than extractions in paediatric patients by preserving function, reducing anxiety, and minimising long-term complications. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously since the available evidence was limited and of low to very low certainty. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials are required.
BACKGROUND: Treatment decision between pulp therapy and extraction for compromised teeth in paediatric patients remains a topic of debate. While both approaches address the associated pain, their long-term impact on children's well-being remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to analyse and compare the impact of pulp therapy and extraction on OHRQoL in paediatric patients.
METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in multiple electronic databases. Methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the RoB 2 tool for randomised controlled trials, ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.
RESULTS: Seven studies comprising a total of 1367 participants met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that pulp therapy was associated with superior OHRQoL outcomes compared to extraction. Children who underwent pulp therapy reported lower anxiety, better emotional well-being, and higher parental satisfaction. Given the heterogeneity among the studies, a narrative synthesis was performed.
CONCLUSION: Pulp therapy may offer better OHRQoL outcomes than extractions in paediatric patients by preserving function, reducing anxiety, and minimising long-term complications. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously since the available evidence was limited and of low to very low certainty. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials are required.