Factors Related to Pulp Survival After Complicated Crown Fracture Following Vital Pulp Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction: Crown fracture with pulp involvement and concomitant complications is a traumatic injury that may have several clinical considerations for dentists and patients. The aim of the present study was to appraise existing scientific evidence on factors related to pulp survival after complicated crown fracture following vital pulp therapy. Methods: An electronic search was performed on 8 sources of published and unpublished literature, as of August 18, 2021. Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies were included, involving patients undergoing treatment in teeth (mature or immature), with vital pulp, after complicated crown fracture. Risk of bias of included studies was examined and assessed through RoB 2.0 or the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool, conditional on study design. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, where applicable, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: Of the 506 initial articles, 24 were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis, and 7 ultimately contributed to meta-analyses. Based on synthesized evidence, in teeth treated with pulpotomy, there was no difference in successful clinical/radiographic outcome denoting pulp survival, when either bioceramic material versus CaOH2 (2 studies, Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.16; P = .09; I-2 = 0.0%), or mineral trioxide aggregate versus CaOH2 (2 studies, RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76- 1.16; P = .56; I-2 = 0.0%). For different pulp management procedures, in pooled immature and mature teeth samples, there was no evidence that pulpotomy performed better than pulp capping with either CaOH2 or mineral trioxide aggregate (5 studies/6 comparisons, RR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.71-1.58; P = .77; I-2 = 74.8%). Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials ranged from raising some concerns to low, whereas nonrandomized studies were recorded as serious to critical risk of bias. Conclusions: The quality of the evidence was very low to moderate. The need for more carefully designed clinical trials in the field is profound, to inform high-quality clinical decision making.