| Literature DB >> 31404393 |
Raparla Mythraiye1, V V Rao1, M S Minor Babu1, Martha Satyam1, Punithavathy R2, Chandrika Paravada1.
Abstract
Introduction The main treatment objective of pediatric dentistry lies in maintaining the integrity of the arches. The loss of primary teeth at an early age causes malocclusion. Primary teeth are considered the best space maintainers in the arch. Hence, every effort should be directed to preserve these teeth as far as possible. One of the most important goals of pediatric dentistry is the restoration of carious primary teeth and the maintenance of optimal oral health. Aim The aim of this study is to compare and evaluate different pulpotomy materials like mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), Biodentine, and Pulpotec in primary molars. Materials and methods In the present study, 84 primary molars were selected for the pulpotomy procedure and randomly assigned to one of the three groups of MTA, Biodentine, and Pulpotec, allocating 28 primary molars to each group. The pulpotomy procedure was performed on all selected teeth and followed by permanent restoration with stainless steel crowns. All the molars were evaluated, both clinically and radiographically, at an interval of one, three, and six months. Results At the end of the first month, there were no adverse clinical and radiographical findings observed in all three groups. At the end of the third month, Group I showed 96% clinical and radiographical success, Group II showed 100% clinical and 96% radiographical success, and Group III showed 100% clinical and radiographical success. At the end of the sixth month, Group I showed 96% clinical and radiographical success, Group II showed 100% clinical and 90% radiographical success and Group III showed 100% clinical and radiographical success. The observations were subjected to statistical analysis using Fisher's exact test and the Chi-square test. Conclusion MTA, Biodentine, and Pulpotec can be used as materials of choice for pulpotomy. Furthermore, Pulpotec appeared to be clinically and radiographically more successful than MTA and Biodentine.Entities:
Keywords: biodentine; formocresol; mta; pulpotec; pulpotomy; pulptherapy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31404393 PMCID: PMC6682388 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.4803
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Preoperative radiograph for the placement of MTA
MTA: Mineral Trioxide Aggregate
Figure 3Three months follow-up after the placement of MTA
MTA - Mineral Trioxide Aggregate
Figure 4Preoperative radiograph for the placement of Biodentine
Figure 6Three months follow-up after the placement of Biodentine
Figure 7Preoperative radiograph for the placement of Pulpotec
Figure 9Three months follow-up after the placement of Pulpotec
Follow-up at the first, third, and sixth months
MTA - Mineral Trioxide Aggregate
| Follow-up | MTA | BIODENTINE | PULPOTEC |
| Starting | 28 | 28 | 28 |
| 1st month | 27 | 25 | 24 |
| 3rd month | 22 | 21 | 24 |
| 6th month | 22 | 21 | 20 |
Comparison of the clinical parameters of the three study groups
AB - Absent; PT - Present; MTA - Mineral Trioxide Aggregate
| Groups | Pain | Sinus tract | Swelling | Mobility | Premature exfoliation | |||||||||||||||
| 3 months | 6 months | 3 months | 6 months | 3 months | 6 months | 3 months | 6 months | 3 months | 6 months | |||||||||||
| AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | |
| MTA | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 22 | 0 | 22 | 0 |
| BIODENTINE | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 |
| PULPOTEC | 24 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| P=0.35 | P=0.35 | P=0.35 | P=0.35 | P=0.35 | ||||||||||||||||
Comparison of the radiographical parameters of the three study groups
AB - Absent; PT - Present; MTA - Mineral Trioxide Aggregate
| Groups | Periodontal ligament widening | Internal/external resorption | Furcal/periapical radiolucency | |||||||||
| 3 months | 6 months | 3 months | 6 months | 3 months | 6 months | |||||||
| AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | AB | PT | |
| MTA | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 22 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 21 | 1 | 21 | 1 |
| BIODENTINE | 20 | 1 | 19 | 2 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 0 |
| PULPOTEC | 24 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 23 | 0 |
| P= 0.056 | P= 0.35 | |||||||||||
Postoperative evaluation after three months
MTA - Mineral Trioxide Aggregate
| Parameter | Group I MTA (n=22) | Group II BIODENTINE (n=21) | Group III PULPOTEC (n=24) | Significance of difference | ||||
| n | percentage | n | percentage | n | percentage | X2 | p | |
| Clinical parameters | ||||||||
| Pain | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.076 | 0.354 |
| Sinus tract | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.076 | 0.354 |
| Swelling | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.076 | 0.354 |
| Mobility | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.076 | 0.354 |
| Premature exfoliation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ------- | ------- |
| Radiographical parameters | ||||||||
| Periodontal ligament widening | 1 | 4.5 | 1 | 4.8 | 0 | 0 | 1.152 | 0.562 |
| Internal/external resorption | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ----- | ------ |
| Furcal/periapical radiolucency | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.076 | 0.354 |
Postoperative evaluation after six months
| Parameter | Group I MTA (n=22) | Group II BIODENTINE (n=21) | Group III PULPOTEC (n=20) | Significance of difference | ||||
| n | percentage | n | percentage | n | percentage | X2 | p | |
| Clinical parameters | ||||||||
| Pain | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.894 | 0.38 |
| Sinus tract | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.894 | 0.38 |
| swelling | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.894 | 0.38 |
| Mobility | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.894 | 0.38 |
| Premature exfoliation | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.894 | 0.38 |
| Radiographical parameters | ||||||||
| Periodontal ligament widening | 1 | 4.5 | 2 | 9.5 | 0 | 0 | 2.052 | 0.358 |
| Internal/external resorption | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -------- | ------- |
| Furcal/periapical radiolucency | 1 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.894 | 0.38 |