Effect of lateral extent of pulp tissue removal on the outcome of partial pulpotomy for managing cariously exposed mature permanent molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract Aim The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of restricted partial pulpotomy (R‐PP) versus extended partial pulpotomy (E‐PP) for managing cariously exposed mature permanent molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP). Methodology This double‐arm, parallel designed randomized clinical trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05406557). Following random allocation, 43 participants of each group received the designated intervention. In the R‐PP group, 2–3 mm of superficial pulp tissue was removed only from the exposure site, while chamber was completely de‐roofed and 2–3 mm of superficial pulp tissue from entire chamber was removed in the E‐PP group. Haemostasis was achieved using 3% sodium hypochlorite‐soaked cotton pellets. Upon haemostasis, ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (ProRoot MTA) was placed over the pulpal wound, overlaid with a resin‐modified glass ionomer liner, and restored with composite resin in the same visit. Outcome measures included clinical and radiographic success evaluation at 6 and 12 months, and pain assessment using the visual analogue scale pre‐operatively and daily for 7 post‐operative days. Nonparametric tests were used for variables including patient's age, pain intensities, mean analgesic consumption, and haemostasis time. Categorical variables including gender, caries type, analgesic intake, hard tissue barrier formation, clinical and radiographic success, and pulp sensibility responses were assessed using Chi‐square or Fisher's exact test. Tooth survival was analysed using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results A total of 81 cases were analysed at 12 months follow‐up. Comparable success was observed in both groups (97.6% in E‐PP & 97.5% in R‐PP; p > .05). The R‐PP group reported significantly lower pain scores on the 1st and 2nd post‐operative days than E‐PP ( p < .05) and required significantly less analgesic intake ( p < .05). Hard tissue barrier formation was significantly lower in the R‐PP group ( p < .05). No significant differences were observed between groups regarding haemostasis time, pulp sensibility responses, and tooth survival ( p > .05). Conclusions Both the PP approaches exhibited comparable success for managing cariously exposed mature permanent molars with SIP. Given the conservative nature of R‐PP, it may be used as preferred PP approach for managing such cases. Being the first study of this kind, further work is necessary to draw definitive conclusions.