METHODS: This narrative review was undertaken to address two main questions - why remove vital pulp tissue in teeth with complex canal anatomy when it can be preserved? And why replace the necrotic pulp in teeth with mature roots with a synthetic material when we can revitalize? This review also aims to discuss anatomical challenges with pulpotomy and revitalization procedures.
RESULTS: Maintaining the vitality of the pulp via partial or full pulpotomy procedures avoids the multiple potential challenges faced by clinicians during root canal treatment. However, carrying out pulpotomy procedures requires a meticulous understanding of the pulp chamber anatomy, which varies from tooth to tooth. Literature shows an increased interest in the application of RPs in teeth with mature roots; however, to date, the relation between the complexity of the root canal system and outcomes of RPs in necrotic multi-rooted teeth with mature roots is unclear and requires further robust comparative research and long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Whenever indicated, pulpotomy procedures are viable treatment options for vital teeth with mature roots; however, comparative, adequately powered studies with long-term follow-up are needed as a priority in this area. RPs show promising outcomes for necrotic teeth with mature roots that warrant more evidence in different tooth types with long-term follow-ups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the pulp chamber anatomy, which is subject to morphological changes by age or as a defensive mechanism against microbial irritation, before practicing partial and full pulpotomy procedures. RP is a promising treatment option for teeth with immature roots, but more evidence is needed for its applications in teeth with mature roots. A universal consensus and considerably more robust evidence are needed for the standardization of RPs in teeth with mature roots.
AIMS AND METHODS: A randomised controlled, non-blinded, cross-over study involving 38 patients (with colostomies and ileostomies) compared the test device to a similar device from the same manufacturer but without the tape border. The main objective was to assess wear time for non-inferiority as a measure of efficacy. Secondary efficacy assessment included peristomal skin condition using the DET (discolouration, erosion and tissue growth) score and patient acceptability, which was assessed through questionnaires using Likert-scale options. Safety was assessed according to the incidence and intensity of device-related adverse events, and the condition of the peristomal skin.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Analysis of results in the per-protocol population showed an average wear time of 4.5 days for both devices and demonstrated non-inferiority. DET scores were similar in both groups, and both had low rates of device-related adverse events, all of which related to peristomal skin. Patients said the devices were user friendly. While the two devices are similar, some patients may find one with an adhesive tape more suited to their needs.