| Literature DB >> 26587413 |
Bharti Kusum1, Kumar Rakesh2, Khanna Richa2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), Biodentine and Propolis as pulpotomy medicaments in primary dentition, both clinically and radiographically.Entities:
Keywords: Biodentine; Mineral trioxide aggregate; Pulpotomy; Vital pulp therapy
Year: 2015 PMID: 26587413 PMCID: PMC4650523 DOI: 10.5395/rde.2015.40.4.276
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Restor Dent Endod ISSN: 2234-7658
Figure 1Representative radiographic observations in all the three groups over different follow-up periods. (a) MTA; (b) Biodentine; (c) Propolis pulpotomies in primary molars.
Clinical and radiographic scoring criteria
| Criteria for clinical and radiographic scoring | ||
|---|---|---|
| Clinical score | Clinical symptom | Definition |
| 1 | asymptomatic | •Pathology: absent |
| •Normal functioning | ||
| •Mobility (physiological) ≤ 1 mm | ||
| 2 | slight discomfort, short-lived | •Pathology: questionable |
| •Percussion sensitivity | ||
| •Gingival inflammation (due to poor oral hygiene) | ||
| •Mobility (physiological) > 1 mm, but < 2 mm | ||
| 3 | minor discomfort, short-lived | •Pathology: initial changes present |
| •Gingival swelling (not due to poor oral hygiene) | ||
| •Mobility > 2 mm, but < 3 mm | ||
| 4 | major discomfort, long-lived Extract immediately | •Pathology: late changes present |
| •Spontaneous pain | ||
| •Gingival swelling (not due to poor oral hygiene) | ||
| •Periodontal pocket formation (exudate) | ||
| •Sinus tract present | ||
| •Mobility ≥ 3 mm | ||
| •Premature tooth loss, due to pathology | ||
*time period from the beginning of the treatment to the assigned follow-up
Clinical sign scores of three groups over the periods
| Time period | Clinical sign score | Group I | Group II | Group III | χ2 value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| baseline/0 mon | 1 | 25 (100.0) | 25 (100.0) | 25 (100.0) | NA | - |
| 2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 3 mon | 1 | 25 (100.0) | 25 (100.0) | 24 (96.0) | 2.03 | 0.363 |
| 2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 6 mon | 1 | 25 (100.0) | 25 (100.0) | 20 (80.0) | 10.71 | 0.030 |
| 2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (16.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.0) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 9 mon | 1 | 25 (100.0) | 25 (100.0) | 20 (80.0) | 10.71 | 0.030 |
| 2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (16.0) |
The numbers in the parentheses were the percentages of the cases rated as the score.
NA, not applicable.
Figure 2Comparison of clinical success rates in all the three groups over different follow-up periods.
Radiographic sign scores of three groups over the periods
| Time period | Radiographic sign score | Group I | Group II | Group III | χ2 value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 mon | 1 | 25 (100.0) | 25 (100.0) | 25 (100.0) | NA | - |
| 2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 3 mon | 1 | 25 (100.0) | 23 (92.0) | 24 (96.0) | 3.08 | 0.544 |
| 2 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (4.0) | 1 (4.0) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 6 mon | 1 | 20 (80.0) | 16 (64.0) | 18 (72.0) | 13.11 | 0.041 |
| 2 | 3 (12.0) | 6 (24.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 3 | 2 (8.0) | 3 (12.0) | 4 (16.0%) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (12.0) | |||
| 9 mon | 1 | 17 (68.0) | 14 (56.0) | 18 (72.0) | 21.78 | 0.001 |
| 2 | 6 (24.0) | 6 (24.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 3 | 2 (8.0) | 5 (20.0) | 1 (4.0) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (24.0) |
The numbers in the parentheses were the percentages of the cases rated as the score.
NA, not applicable.
Figure 3Comparison of radiographic success rates in all the three groups over different follow-up periods.