Literature DB >> 18291276

Comparison of enamel matrix derivative versus formocresol as pulpotomy agents in the primary dentition.

Jumana Sabbarini1, Ahmed Mohamed, Nadia Wahba, Omar El-Meligy, Jeffrey Dean.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of two different pulpotomy agents: one novel agent, the biologically active odontogenic protein enamel matrix derivative (EMD) versus formocresol (FC). A randomized, single-blind, split-mouth study was used with a sample of 15 children aged 4 to 7 years (mean age, 5 +/- 0.73 years). A total of 15 pairs of teeth, 1 pair per child, were selected for treatment. One tooth from each pair was randomly assigned to either the EMD pulpotomy group or the FC pulpotomy group. All teeth were followed up clinically and radiographically at 2, 4, and 6 months. After 6 months, the clinical success rates for the FC and EMD groups were 67% and 93%, respectively. Although most likely clinically relevant, the clinical success rate difference after 6 months was not statistically significant. After 6 months, the radiographic success rates for the FC and EMD groups were 13% and 60 %, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference at p < or = 0.05. The clinical and radiographic assessment of EMD pulpotomized teeth in this study offers preliminary evidence that EMD is a promising material which may be as successful, or more so, than other pulpotomy agents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18291276     DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endod        ISSN: 0099-2399            Impact factor:   4.171


  7 in total

Review 1.  Evidence of pulpotomy in primary teeth comparing MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, and electrosurgery with formocresol.

Authors:  E Stringhini Junior; M E B Vitcel; L B Oliveira
Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent       Date:  2015-04-02

2.  The effect of enamel matrix protein on gingival tissue thickness in vivo.

Authors:  Khalid Al-Hezaimi; Hamad Al-Fahad; Rory O'Neill; Levi Shuman; Terrence Griffin
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 2.634

Review 3.  Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth.

Authors:  Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron; Anne-Marie Glenny; Frédéric Courson; Pierre Durieux; Michele Muller-Bolla; Helene Fron Chabouis
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-05-31

4.  Postoperative Pain following Pulpotomy of Primary Molars with Two Biomaterials: A Randomized Split Mouth Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Leili Shafie; Hamide Barghi; Masoud Parirokh; Hamed Ebrahimnejad; Nozar Nakhae; Sara Esmaili
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2017

Review 5.  Efficacy of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Vital Pulp Therapy: A Review of Literature.

Authors:  Shariq Najeeb; Zohaib Khurshid; Muhammad Sohail Zafar; Sana Zohaib; Fahad Siddiqui
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2017

6.  Root maturation and dentin-pulp response to enamel matrix derivative in pulpotomized permanent teeth.

Authors:  Sherif S Darwish; Shadia H Abd El Meguid; Nadia A Wahba; Ahmed A-R Mohamed; Wojciech Chrzanowski; Ensanya A Abou Neel
Journal:  J Tissue Eng       Date:  2014-02-02       Impact factor: 7.813

7.  Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Four Different Pulpotomy Agents in Primary Molars: A Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  B Sunitha; Ravindar Puppala; Balaji Kethineni; Manoj K Mallela; Ravigna Peddi; P Tarasingh
Journal:  Int J Clin Pediatr Dent       Date:  2017-02-27
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.