No abstract

Background To systematically review the effectiveness primary molar pulpotomy based on the clinical and radiographic outcomes using lasers over the conventional therapies. Material and Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included Randomized or Quasi-randomized trials comparing LASER with conventional pulpotomy therapies (formocresol, ferric sulphate, MTA or calcium hydroxide) with atleast 6-month follow-up period was included. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed and metanalysis was done using RevMan software. Results Of the 1383 articles that were searched, only 14 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 10 for meta- analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical success rate [OR 0.99, 95%CI (0.19,5.22)] or radiographic success rate [OR 0.77, 95%CI (0.31,1.87)] of LASER therapy compared to Formocresol in primary molar pulpotomy for 6 months. No statistically significant difference were found in clinical success rate [OR 1.04, 95%CI (0.35,3.07)] and radiographic success rate [OR 0.71, 95%CI (0.37,1.35)] at 12 month follow-up also. Comparison of LASER with Ferric Sulphate also did not show a statistically significant difference. Conclusions Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in clinical and radiographic outcomes of LASER pulpotomy with conventional pulpotomy (formocresol and ferric sulphate) at 6 and 12 months follow-up. However, there was considerable risk of bias in the included studies. Key words: Pulp therapy, Laser, formocresol.