Reviewed 2 September 2026. Numbers come from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 to 29 studies per outcome on pulp therapy in baby teeth, two further reviews of pulpectomy outcomes and materials, a meta-analysis of space loss after early extraction, two population studies on what untreated decay does to children, and two syntheses of minimally invasive options — each listed at the end with its PMID. Written for parents told “they fall out anyway” and for clinicians who have to answer for it. Not medical advice.
The short answers
- The claim “baby teeth do not matter because they fall out” is not supported by anything we verified, and it is contradicted by what untreated decay does to children. In a Brazilian population study of schoolchildren, the prevalence of clinical consequences of untreated caries (PUFA ≥ 1) was 41.1%, and children with caries had worse oral health-related quality of life by 1.44 points (β = 1.44; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.86); school attendance (PR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90) and higher family income (PR 0.59; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84) were protective (Silva RCDD et al., Rev Bras Epidemiol 2026-01-01, PMID 42385016). In a separate population-based study of 627 children aged 8 to 11, 70.6% reported having had toothache at least once (Souza et al., Braz Oral Res 2025-01-01, PMID 41259575).
- When a baby molar’s nerve is involved, treatment works — and the numbers are better than most parents expect. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis reported clinical success of pulpotomy at 92.32% (95% CI 88.99 to 95.00; 28 studies, 1,410 teeth) and radiographic success at 85.35% (95% CI 80.94 to 89.26; 29 studies, 874 teeth), against 79.96% (95% CI 71.86 to 86.98) clinical and 74.07% (95% CI 67.84 to 79.84) radiographic success for pulpectomy (21 studies, 2,007 teeth) at 24 months and beyond; heterogeneity was high, so the authors used a random-effects model, risk of bias was moderate and publication bias minimal (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222).
- For irreversible pulpitis, the choice between the two pulp therapies is not clearly decided: a separate systematic review found no statistically significant difference between pulpotomy and pulpectomy up to 12 months in primary teeth without swelling or radiographic periapical infection — and rated the certainty of evidence as very low for both outcomes (Chawla et al., J Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 41485532). Same review’s clinical-significance line: pulpotomy is a reasonable, less invasive option when the case fits, and long-term trials are still needed.
- Pain after these procedures is comparable, with one wrinkle. In a randomised trial in primary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, 65.2% of pulpotomy versus 73.9% of pulpectomy patients were pain-free at six hours, absence of pain was similar at 24 and 48 hours (73.9% vs 78.3%), but at one week 8.7% of pulpotomy patients still had severe pain against 2.2% in the pulpectomy group; overall, postoperative pain severity was equivalent with no significant difference across follow-ups (Sermani et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-04-01, PMID 42035058).
- Pulpectomy is more operator- and case-sensitive than the pooled 80% suggests: a systematic review of 12 studies found success ranging from 38.5% to 96.2% over five years, with success tied to absence of preoperative periapical lesion, minimal root resorption, adequate canal fill and the type of final restoration, and failure tied to periapical lesion, preoperative swelling, fistula and pulpectomy done on trauma teeth; the obturation material mattered too (zinc-oxide-eugenol 90% versus iodoform-based pastes 71% or less at 18 months), while age, sex, tooth position, treatment modality and number of visits did not significantly affect success (Kendre et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01, PMID 41552027).
- Extracting early has a measured price, and it is asymmetric by jaw. A meta-analysis of 7 studies (141 children for maxillary, 171 for mandibular analysis) found space loss after premature loss of first primary molars of −0.52 mm (95% CI −0.79 to −0.26; p < 0.001) in the maxilla at 9–12 months and −1.78 mm (95% CI −2.09 to −1.47; p < 0.001) in the mandible at 8–9 months; the authors’ conclusion is that space maintainers are indicated after mandibular extractions while maxillary cases may not need routine intervention (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934). A broader meta-analysis on space maintainers supports the same direction: they limit migration of adjacent teeth and reduce the need for more invasive orthodontic treatment later, and also help masticatory function and speech development (Casaña-Ruiz et al., Dent J (Basel) 2025-01-01, PMID 39851607).
- There are genuinely less invasive options with pooled support, and one of them is the least dental thing on the list. An umbrella review of 49 systematic reviews (from 498 records) concluded that among minimally invasive approaches for caries in primary teeth, silver diamine fluoride, the Hall technique (a preformed metal crown cemented without caries removal or local anaesthesia) and resin infiltration showed significant benefits (Padilla-Cáceres et al., Front Dent Med 2025-01-01, PMID 41602568). A narrative synthesis of minimally invasive dentistry in children reports SDF arresting caries in 80% to 90% of cases, with ART and the Hall technique as cost-effective alternatives to conventional restorations (Al-Kaff et al., Cureus 2025-07-01, PMID 40772222).
- For a lesion that is not yet a cavity, “do nothing and watch” is the weaker option, and it is quantified: a systematic review and meta-analysis of microinvasive versus non-invasive management of non-cavitated proximal lesions found an overall odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.38) favouring microinvasive techniques, with minimal heterogeneity (τ² = 0.04; I² = 10%), no significant publication bias and moderate quality of evidence by GRADE; subgroups by dentition, intervention type and lesion depth all favoured the microinvasive side (Tasleem et al., BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01, PMID 39780151). The same review is honest about the limits: cost-effectiveness, feasibility, durability and long-term effects still need work.
- Neglect is what turns a small lesion into an advanced one — and it is measurable. In a study of children’s first permanent molars, mean DMFT was 2.41 ± 1.54 and PUFA 0.34 ± 0.71; parental dental neglect correlated weakly but significantly with the advanced consequences score (rho = 0.174; p = 0.008) and not with early caries experience (rho = 0.106 and 0.097; p > 0.05) (Gümüşboğa et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41888825). Read that as: the difference between a filled baby molar and an abscess is usually not the size of the cavity but the number of missed reviews.
- In the US the practical question is usually coverage, and Utah’s public children’s plan is explicit: stainless steel crowns are allowed once every two years per tooth for children, “to protect teeth with large cavities or after a nerve treatment (pulpotomy)”; a pulpotomy — the document’s phrase is “a ‘mini’ root canal for baby teeth” — is covered for infected baby teeth without prior authorisation, limited to once per tooth and not covered for a tooth already loose and about to fall out; silver diamine fluoride is covered for children with baby teeth once every six months per tooth as a non-invasive alternative to fillings; sealants once every two years per tooth on sound permanent molars and premolars; extractions without authorisation when the tooth cannot be saved (data as of 04 February 2026; see Additional documents).
Why a baby molar is worth treating: the four mechanisms
The argument for treating primary teeth is not sentimental, and it is not “cleanliness”. It is four concrete jobs the tooth does, each with a literature behind it.
Pain and infection. Untreated caries produces pulpitis, abscess and, in the population data above, a PUFA prevalence of 41.1% in a national sample of children, with measurably worse quality of life (Silva RCDD et al., Rev Bras Epidemiol 2026-01-01, PMID 42385016). Toothache is not a rite of passage: 70.6% of 8-to-11-year-olds in one Brazilian population study had already had it (Souza et al., Braz Oral Res 2025-01-01, PMID 41259575).
Space. The first primary molar holds arch length for the first permanent molar. Lose it early and the loss is not zero: in the meta-analysis above, −0.52 mm in the maxilla and −1.78 mm in the mandible, and the mandibular figure is more than three times larger, which is exactly why the same authors recommend space maintainers after lower extractions and not routinely in the upper arch (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934).
The permanent tooth developing under it. A chronically infected primary molar sits on top of a permanent tooth that is still calcifying. This is the part parents are least often told and the part the neglect data indirectly capture: dental neglect was associated with the advanced consequences in first permanent molars (rho = 0.174; p = 0.008), not with early decay — i.e. with what happens when problems are left (Gümüşboğa et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41888825).
Function and development. Chewing efficiency and speech both depend on an intact primary dentition, which is part of why space maintainers are supported beyond pure orthodontic logic (Casaña-Ruiz et al., Dent J (Basel) 2025-01-01, PMID 39851607).
None of this means treating every white spot. It means the default of “wait until it falls out” is not the neutral option — it is an option with a price, and the numbers above are that price.
What the options actually score
| Option | Best verified result | Evidence base and its limits |
|---|---|---|
| Pulpotomy + crown (nerve partly involved) | 92.32% clinical success (88.99–95.00); 85.35% radiographic (80.94–89.26) (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222) | 28–29 studies, 874–1,410 teeth, ≥24 months; high heterogeneity, moderate risk of bias |
| Pulpectomy (whole nerve removed) | 79.96% clinical (71.86–86.98); 74.07% radiographic (67.84–79.84) (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222) | 21 studies, 2,007 teeth; success varies 38.5%–96.2% by case selection (Kendre et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01, PMID 41552027) |
| Pulpotomy vs pulpectomy in irreversible pulpitis | No significant difference to 12 months (Chawla et al., J Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 41485532) | Very low certainty for both outcomes |
| Hall technique (preformed metal crown, no drilling) | Among the approaches with significant benefit in an umbrella review of 49 reviews (Padilla-Cáceres et al., Front Dent Med 2025-01-01, PMID 41602568) | High-confidence reviews only; 93.8% vs 60.8% two-year success in the trial cited there |
| Silver diamine fluoride | Significant benefit in the same umbrella review (Padilla-Cáceres et al., Front Dent Med 2025-01-01, PMID 41602568); 80–90% arrest in a narrative synthesis (Al-Kaff et al., Cureus 2025-07-01, PMID 40772222) | Arrests, does not restore shape; staining is the trade-off |
| Microinvasive treatment of non-cavitated proximal lesions | OR 0.29 (0.19–0.38) versus non-invasive (Tasleem et al., BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01, PMID 39780151) | Moderate GRADE certainty; low heterogeneity; durability and cost still unproven |
| Extraction and nothing else | Space loss −0.52 mm upper, −1.78 mm lower (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934) | 7 studies, 141–171 children; the outcome measured is space, not the child |
| Extraction + space maintainer | Limits migration and later need for invasive orthodontics; supports chewing and speech (Casaña-Ruiz et al., Dent J (Basel) 2025-01-01, PMID 39851607) | Meta-analysis of effectiveness |
| LSTR (“three-mix” antibiotic paste) | No significant difference from conventional pulpotomy/pulpectomy at 12 months (Baghlaf et al., Saudi Dent J 2025-10-01, PMID 41091393) | 14 studies; only two compared it with MTA pulpotomy; positioned for children where conventional treatment is not feasible |
Two things this table should not be made to say. First, “pulpotomy beats pulpectomy” is not established for the harder cases: the head-to-head review found no significant difference and graded its evidence very low (Chawla et al., J Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 41485532). Second, the 92% success figure is a pooled average over 28 studies that disagree substantially (I² high enough to force a random-effects model) — the honest sentence is “usually works, sometimes does not, and the tooth has to be reviewed”.
How to read this like a clinician
- Sort lesions by status, not by age of the patient: non-cavitated proximal lesions have a microinvasive option with OR 0.29 (Tasleem et al., BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01, PMID 39780151); frank pulp involvement has a pulpotomy/pulpectomy decision with 92% and 80% pooled success respectively (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222).
- Before extracting a first primary molar in the mandibular arch, decide the space question in the same note: −1.78 mm at 8–9 months is not a theoretical risk (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934), and a maintainer is the supported response there, while the upper arch may not need routine intervention.
- Document the material choice in pulpectomy: the review found ZOE at 90% versus iodoform pastes at 71% or less at 18 months (Kendre et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01, PMID 41552027).
- Record the contraindication the payer already wrote down: in Utah Medicaid, pulpotomy is covered for infected baby teeth once per tooth, and explicitly not covered for a tooth already loose and about to fall out (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934) — which is also the clinical line: if the tooth is exfoliating on schedule, the treatment is not the answer, extraction or monitoring is.
- Offer SDF and the Hall technique where they fit, and describe them honestly: arrest, no shape restoration, staining, and in Hall’s case a technically demanding but anaesthesia-free procedure (Padilla-Cáceres et al., Front Dent Med 2025-01-01, PMID 41602568) (Al-Kaff et al., Cureus 2025-07-01, PMID 40772222).
- Track neglect, not just decay: the association with advanced outcomes, not early lesions, is where the modifiable risk lives (Gümüşboğa et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41888825).
What the evidence does not support
- That leaving a cavitated, symptomatic baby tooth alone is neutral: the population data attach measurable harm in quality of life and school attendance to clinical consequences of untreated caries (Silva RCDD et al., Rev Bras Epidemiol 2026-01-01, PMID 42385016).
- That pulpotomy is proven superior to pulpectomy in irreversible pulpitis: no significant difference, very low certainty (Chawla et al., J Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 41485532).
- That LSTR is an equal-or-better substitute for conventional pulp therapy: the review found no significant difference at 12 months and only two studies compared it with MTA pulpotomy (Baghlaf et al., Saudi Dent J 2025-10-01, PMID 41091393).
- That a space maintainer is needed in every early loss: the meta-analysis explicitly says the maxillary arch may not require routine intervention (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934).
- That age, sex, tooth position or number of visits decide pulpectomy success: the review found they did not — pre-existing periapical pathology, resorption and fill quality did (Kendre et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01, PMID 41552027).
- That SDF repairs a tooth: it arrests, and the syntheses report arrest rates of 80–90%, not restoration (Al-Kaff et al., Cureus 2025-07-01, PMID 40772222).
Cost, coverage, and what to ask for
Utah’s public children’s dental benefit already contains a treatment ladder that matches the evidence, and it is worth reading before you decide to skip care: pulpotomy covered without prior authorisation for infected baby teeth, once per tooth, excluded on a tooth about to exfoliate; stainless steel crowns allowed once every two years per tooth specifically “to protect teeth with large cavities or after a nerve treatment”; silver diamine fluoride covered every six months per tooth as a non-invasive alternative to fillings; sealants every two years per sound permanent molar or premolar; simple and surgical extractions without prior authorisation when the tooth cannot be saved; and orthodontics only once per lifetime with prior authorisation via the state IOTN sheet (data as of 04 February 2026; see Additional documents). That last line closes the loop with the space data: if a lower first primary molar is lost early and space is not held, the correction may land in a category the plan will not fund twice.
For a family paying cash, the same structure gives you a script: ask which option the plan will pay for on this tooth, and ask for the one with pooled success numbers attached rather than the one sold as painless. The cheapest covered item that also has trial support here is the crown after a pulpotomy — because it is what makes the 92% figure hold (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222).
A plan, if you want one
- Get the status, not the scare. Ask in plain words: is the lesion non-cavitated or cavitated; is the nerve involved; is the tooth loose and near its own expiry date. Each of these three flips the answer (Tasleem et al., BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01, PMID 39780151) (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222) (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934).
- If non-cavitated: microinvasive treatment plus fluoride and sugar-frequency control, and a review interval — not “watch” alone (Tasleem et al., BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01, PMID 39780151).
- If the nerve is involved and the tooth is not exfoliating soon: pulpotomy with a stainless steel crown is the option with the best pooled numbers (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222); pulpectomy is reasonable when the root and lesion allow it (Kendre et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01, PMID 41552027).
- If extraction is chosen: for a lower first primary molar, decide on a space maintainer at the same visit (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934) (Casaña-Ruiz et al., Dent J (Basel) 2025-01-01, PMID 39851607).
- If the child cannot cooperate: ask about SDF and the Hall technique before anaesthesia-based plans, and about what the arrest rate does and does not buy (Padilla-Cáceres et al., Front Dent Med 2025-01-01, PMID 41602568) (Al-Kaff et al., Cureus 2025-07-01, PMID 40772222).
- Then keep the reviews. The measurable difference between a 4% and a 41% rate of clinical consequences is what happens between appointments (Silva RCDD et al., Rev Bras Epidemiol 2026-01-01, PMID 42385016) (Gümüşboğa et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41888825).
Frequently asked questions
Is it worth filling baby teeth? On the verified evidence, for a lesion that has progressed: yes — either with a microinvasive approach for non-cavitated proximal lesions (OR 0.29) (Tasleem et al., BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01, PMID 39780151) or with pulp therapy and a crown where the nerve is involved, at 92% clinical success (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222). For a tooth that is already loose and due to fall out, no — and Utah’s own benefit rules say the same (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934).
My child is afraid of the drill. Is there a non-drilling option? Two: silver diamine fluoride (arrests in 80–90% in the narrative synthesis, at the cost of a dark stain) and the Hall technique, which is a crown cemented without caries removal or anaesthesia; both were among the approaches with significant benefit in an umbrella review of 49 systematic reviews (Al-Kaff et al., Cureus 2025-07-01, PMID 40772222) (Padilla-Cáceres et al., Front Dent Med 2025-01-01, PMID 41602568).
The dentist wants to pull it rather than treat it. Is that reasonable? It is, if the tooth cannot be restored, if there is a vertical root fracture or pathology affecting the developing permanent tooth, or if it is close to natural exfoliation. Ask what the plan is for the space, because in the lower arch the measured consequence of doing nothing is roughly 1.8 mm (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934).
Do baby tooth infections damage the adult tooth? The chronic-infection mechanism is exactly why this question exists, and the population data show what being left does: neglect tracked with advanced consequences in first permanent molars rather than with early decay (Gümüşboğa et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41888825). Direct evidence on enamel damage in the successor was not part of what we verified, so ask the clinician to look at the tooth underneath rather than accept a general reassurance.
Will a space maintainer be needed forever? Not forever — its job is to hold length until the permanent tooth is ready. The evidence supports its use specifically after lower first primary molar loss (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934) (Casaña-Ruiz et al., Dent J (Basel) 2025-01-01, PMID 39851607).
Does it matter which filling material is used? For the final restoration on a pulpotomy-treated primary molar, yes — crowns outperform direct restorations in this literature, and a stainless steel crown is what the payer documents are built around (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222).
Glossary: kitchen-table words ↔ chart words
| What you say at home | What is in the notes | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|
| “The nerve is gone” | Irreversible pulpitis; pulp necrosis | Clinical and radiographic signs; pulpal diagnosis criteria (Chawla et al., J Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 41485532) |
| “Half the nerve” | Pulpotomy (coronal pulpectomy) | Clinical and radiographic success at 12–24+ months (Vaiude et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01, PMID 42328222) |
| “Root canal on a baby tooth” | Pulpectomy of primary tooth | Success 38.5%–96.2% by case selection (Kendre et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01, PMID 41552027) |
| “The silver paint” | 38% silver diamine fluoride; chemical arrest | Arrest rate; lesion activity at review (Al-Kaff et al., Cureus 2025-07-01, PMID 40772222) |
| “The metal cap without drilling” | Hall technique / preformed metal crown cemented over unremoved caries | Two-year clinical success in RCT and network meta-analysis (Padilla-Cáceres et al., Front Dent Med 2025-01-01, PMID 41602568) |
| “A hole that hasn’t broken through” | Non-cavitated (initial) lesion, ICDAS 1–2 or proximal equivalent | Progression/regression odds in microinvasive trials (Tasleem et al., BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01, PMID 39780151) |
| “Abscess, swelling, a pimple on the gum” | PUFA lesion (pulp involvement, ulceration, fistula, abscess) | PUFA/code prevalence in population studies (Silva RCDD et al., Rev Bras Epidemiol 2026-01-01, PMID 42385016) |
| “The space keeper” | Space maintainer (band-and-loop, distal shoe, etc.) | Arch-length and space change in millimetres (El-Motayam et al., BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01, PMID 41820934) (Casaña-Ruiz et al., Dent J (Basel) 2025-01-01, PMID 39851607) |
Related reading on this site: what to do about a toothache at night, what to eat and drink in the first days, how long to wait before smoking or vaping again and which swelling signs mean the emergency department.
How this page was built, and what it cannot tell you
We searched Europe PMC for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised trials on treatment of caries in primary teeth, retrieved each record programmatically (authors, journal, volume, issue, pages, DOI, open-access status and citation count) and quoted only numbers printed in the fetched abstracts, together with the certainty ratings the authors themselves published. Where pooled heterogeneity forced a random-effects model, we say so, because it is the reason the confidence intervals are as wide as they are. Where a review’s certainty is “very low”, that adjective travels with the finding.
What this page cannot tell you: whether your child’s specific tooth is restorable (that needs a clinical and radiographic assessment of root resorption and periapical status — the two variables that separate success from failure in the pulpectomy data (Kendre et al., Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01, PMID 41552027)); what your plan will pay for; how long a particular restoration will last in a particular mouth; and whether extraction plus a maintainer or pulp therapy plus a crown is better for one specific child, which no pooled number in this review can settle. What it can settle is that “baby teeth don’t matter” is a claim with no support in the material we checked — and that both directions of treatment are measured.
Sources
Peer-reviewed evidence
- Vaiude A, Jawdekar A, Mistry LN. Long-term Outcomes of Invasive Pulp Therapies in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026-03-01;19(3):389-402. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3464 · PMID 42328222 · PMCID PMC13280505 · open access
- Chawla S, Singhal R, Namdev R, Kumar A, Chhanna K, Kumari C. Effectiveness of pulpotomy compared with pulpectomy for irreversible pulpitis in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2026-03-01;166():106329. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106329 · PMID 41485532 · cited by 1 (Europe PMC)
- Sermani DI, Abdelmotelb MA, Elheeny AAH. Postoperative pain after pulpotomy versus pulpectomy of primary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: an equivalent randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2026-04-01;26(1):786. doi:10.1186/s12903-026-08329-z · PMID 42035058 · PMCID PMC13141260 · open access
- Kendre SB, Bhatane AU, Kale YJ, Dadpe MV, Dahake PT. Factors Affecting Success and Failure of Pulpectomy in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025-12-01;18(12):1530-1540. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3343 · PMID 41552027 · PMCID PMC12810157 · open access · cited by 2 (Europe PMC)
- El-Motayam AK, Hassan MA, Sadek MM, Fathalla R, Wahba N, Mahmoud R, Elshamy SH. Extraction of first primary molars and significance of space loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01;26(1):611. doi:10.1186/s12903-026-07934-2 · PMID 41820934 · PMCID PMC13063717 · open access
- Tasleem R, Alqahtani SA, Abogazalah N, Almubarak H, Riaz A, Ali SS, Allana Z. Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2025-01-01;25(1):48. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-05400-5 · PMID 39780151 · PMCID PMC11716243 · open access · cited by 4 (Europe PMC)
- Padilla-Cáceres TC, Arbildo-Vega HI, Mamani-Cori V, Caballero-Apaza LM, Cruzado-Oliva FH, Farje-Gallardo CA, Marroquín-Soto C, Aguirre-Ipenza R, Vásquez-Rodrigo H, Luján-Valencia SA, Meza-Málaga JM, Castillo-Cornock TB, Coronel-Zubiate FT. Effect of minimal intervention on carious lesions in primary teeth. An Umbrella review. Front Dent Med 2025-01-01;6():1751752. doi:10.3389/fdmed.2025.1751752 · PMID 41602568 · PMCID PMC12833399 · open access · cited by 1 (Europe PMC)
- Al-Kaff AA, Alshehri AZ, Alasmari RA, Alsubaie N, Aldaws A, Althaqeel A, Alshehri RS, Alawaji YM. Minimally Invasive Techniques for Managing Dental Caries in Children: Efficacy, Applications, and Future Directions. Cureus 2025-07-01;17(7):e87450. doi:10.7759/cureus.87450 · PMID 40772222 · PMCID PMC12327548 · open access · cited by 1 (Europe PMC)
- Baghlaf K, Alamoudi RA. Clinical and radiographic success of lesion sterilization and tissue repair in primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi Dent J 2025-10-01;37(7-9):61. doi:10.1007/s44445-025-00059-2 · PMID 41091393 · PMCID PMC12528516 · open access · cited by 2 (Europe PMC)
- Silva RCDD, Campioni FLDS, Guerra HS, Meller FO, Quadra CA, Camargo Júnior EB, Schäfer AA. Association of clinical consequences of untreated caries in early childhood with oral health-related quality of life. Rev Bras Epidemiol 2026-01-01;29Suppl 1(Suppl 1):e260018supl1. doi:10.1590/1980-549720260018.supl.1 · PMID 42385016 · PMCID PMC13325561 · open access
- Souza TO, Roberto LL, Ruas NGC, Souto-Souza D, Paiva PCP, Ramos-Jorge ML. Dental pain among children aged 8 to 11 and associated factors: a population-based study. Braz Oral Res 2025-01-01;39():e120. doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2025.vol39.120 · PMID 41259575 · PMCID PMC12628737 · open access
- Gümüşboğa ZŞ, İzer D, Gümüşboğa E. The relationship between the clinical status of permanent first molars in children and dental neglect. BMC Oral Health 2026-03-01;26(1):790. doi:10.1186/s12903-026-08157-1 · PMID 41888825 · PMCID PMC13147873 · open access
- Casaña-Ruiz M, Aura-Tormos JI, Marques-Martinez L, Garcia-Miralles E, Perez-Bermejo M. Effectiveness of Space Maintainers in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dent J (Basel) 2025-01-01;13(1):32. doi:10.3390/dj13010032 · PMID 39851607 · PMCID PMC11763675 · open access · cited by 3 (Europe PMC)
Additional documents
- InsureKidsNow (CMS). Summary of Benefits Report for Utah, Medicaid — dental (data as of 04 Feb 2026) — pulpotomy on infected primary teeth is covered without prior authorisation, once per tooth, and is excluded when the tooth is already loose; stainless steel crowns are covered once every two years per tooth to protect teeth with large cavities or after a nerve treatment; silver diamine fluoride is covered every six months per tooth as a non-invasive alternative to fillings; fluoride varnish is covered up to four times per calendar year (under age 5 it may be applied by a physician at a well-child visit, from age 5 in the dental office); sealants are covered once every two years per tooth on first and second permanent molars and premolars only when the tooth has no decay or filling (PDF)
- InsureKidsNow (CMS), same report — simple and surgical extractions are covered without prior authorisation when the tooth cannot be saved by a filling or a root canal; a pulpotomy is the state document’s “mini root canal treatment for primary teeth”; emergency treatment of an abscess (exam, radiographs, incision and drainage) needs no prior authorisation; general anaesthesia and IV conscious sedation are covered only where a child cannot be treated safely under local anaesthesia, with the reason documented; nitrous oxide analgesia is explicitly non-covered (PDF)
- InsureKidsNow (CMS), same report — orthodontics are covered once per lifetime with prior authorisation on the state IOTN sheet (transitional dentition 10–14 years, adolescent 10–21, adult 14–21); a retainer is covered once per lifetime at the end of treatment, replacements generally are not; occlusal appliances and night guards are not covered; treatment of a TMJ disorder is not covered, while TMJ fractures are (PDF)
Bibliographic records above were retrieved and verified programmatically from Europe PMC (authors, journal, volume, pages, DOI, PMID, citation count). Coverage, guideline and regulatory statements are quoted from the cited public documents with their dates; verify against the current version before relying on them. This article is not medical or dental advice.