Comparison of calcium silicate-based materials in pulpotomies of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Purpose: The primary objective of this investigation is to evaluate the clinical and radiographic findings of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (BD) as pulpotomy agents in primary molars. Materials and Methods: Two hundred primary molars (N=200) were treated with pulpotomy. Clinical and radiographic outcomes, including both successes and failures, were documented throughout a 36-month follow-up period. Statistical analyses were performed using the Fisher Exact, McNemar, and Chi-Square tests. Results: No statistically significant differences in success rates were found between the 1-, 3-, 6-, 24-, and 36-month assessments for each material when evaluated independently. However, at the twelfth month, the clinical and radiographic success rates for MTA (98% and 92%, respectively) were significantly higher than those for BD (90% and 80%, respectively) with a p-value of less than 0.05. Conclusion: In this study, MTA demonstrated greater success than BD at 36 months. Nevertheless, higher quality randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods are necessary to obtain more reliable results.

Keywords

• Tricalcium silicate
• mineral trioxide aggregate
• pulpotomy
• primary teethv

References

1. Fuks AB et al. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: longterm follow-up. Pediatr Dent 1997;19:327-30. google scholar
2. Cuadros-Fernandez C el al. Short-term treatment outcome of pulpotomies in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 2016;20:1639-45. google scholar
3. Juneja P, Kulkarni S. Clinical and radiographic comparison of biodentine, mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulpotomy agents in primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2017;18:271-8. google scholar
4. Guven Y et al. Success Rates of Pulpotomies in Primary Molars Using Calcium Silicate-Based Materials: A Randomized Control Trial. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:4059703. google scholar
5. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010;24:8-18 google scholar
6. El Meligy OA, Allazzam S, Alamoudi NM. Comparison between biodentine and formocresol for pulpotomy of primary teeth: A randomized clinical trial. Quintessence Int 2016;47:571-80. google scholar
7. Yıldız E, Tosun G. Evaluation of formocresol, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulfate, and MTA primary molar pulpotomies. Eur J Dent 2014;8:234-40. google scholar
8. Erdem AP et al. Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol pulpotomies: a 24-month study. Pediatr Dent 2011;33:165-70. google scholar

9. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A Comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod 2008;34:950-5. google scholar
10. Cuadros-Fernandez C et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the use of four dressing materials in pulpotomized primary molars: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Int J Paediatr Dent 2013;23:400-7. google scholar
11. Smail-Faugeron V et al. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014;6:CDOO322O. google scholar
12. Fuks AB. Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and treatment perspectives. J Endod 2008;34:S18-S24. google scholar
13. Stringhini Junior E, Vitcel ME, Oliveira LB. Evidence of pulpotomy in primary teeth comparing MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, and electrosurgery with formocresol. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015;16:303-12. google scholar
14. Moretti AB et al. The effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium hydroxide and formocresol for pulpotomies in primary teeth. Int Endod J 2008;41:547-55. google scholar
15. Yildirim C et al. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Formocresol, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Portland Cement, and Enamel Matrix Derivative in Primary Teeth Pulpotomies: A Two Year FollowUp. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40:14-20. google scholar
16. Farsi N et al. Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:307-11. google scholar
17. Noorollahian H. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp medicaments for pulpotomies in primary molars. Br Dent J 2008;204: E20. google scholar
18. Sushynski JM et al. Comparison of gray mineral trioxide aggregate and diluted formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a 6- to 24-month observation. Pediatr Dent 2012;34:120-8. google scholar
19. Bani M et al. The Clinical and Radiographic Success of Primary Molar Pulpotomy Using Biodentine™ and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate: A 24-Month Randomized Clinical Trial. Pediatr Dent 2017;39:284-8. google scholar
20. Kusum B, Rakesh K, Richa K. Clinical and radiographical evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate, biodentine and propolis as pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40:276-85. google scholar Niranjani K et al. Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using mineral trioxide aggregate, laser and biodentin an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZC35-ZC37. google scholar
21. Hugar SM et al. In vivo comparative evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars: A 60-month follow-up study. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8:122-7. google scholar
22. Olatosi OO, Sote EO, Orenuga OO. Effect of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy on vital primary teeth: A clinical and radiographic study. Niger J Clin Pract 2015;18:292-6. google scholar
23. Çarıkçıoğlu B, Derelioğlu SŞ, Yılmaz Y. Clinical Assessment of Pulp Therapy for Primary Molars Performed Under General Anesthesia, Using Two Pulpotomy Agents-A Retrospective Cohort Study. Int J Dent Sci and Res 2017;5:110-5. google scholar
24. Rajasekharan S et al. Efficacy of three different pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a randomized control trial. Int Endod J 2017;50:215-28. google scholar