Objective:

To compare pulp therapy of primary teeth in patients according to the evidence in the literature.

Methodology:

Literature review in the scientific literature, in the following databases: PUBMED, MEDLINE, BVS, BBO Dentistry, IBECS and Web of Science. The descriptors selected were: pulpotomy and pulpectomy, combined in the following search strategy: (pulpotomy) AND (pulpectomy).

Results:

65 articles were found by selecting by title and abstract. After a thorough reading only 23 articles met the inclusion criteria of being a clinical trial, longitudinal study (quasi-experimental or cohort), duplicate articles and 13 that were not directly related to the topic were not excluded. The final sample totaled 7 articles for the integrative review. The evidence is limited by the number of studies that met the criteria.

Conclusions:

The contribution made on the subject is to increase knowledge regarding pulp therapies, which needs to be improved or detailed in further studies, for that reason we cannot make a definitive conclusion on which of both pulp treatments is better, but it gives us a tendency and from a clinical point view to be able to consider pulp treatments as an adequate alternative to maintain the primary tooth in the oral cavity with scientific evidence.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )