4.5 Article

Prognostic factors for the survival of primary molars following pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate: a retrospective cohort study

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 1797-1804

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03482-3

Keywords

Pulpotomy; Primary teeth; Mineral trioxide aggregate; Survival analysis; Risk factors

Funding

  1. Yonsei University College of Dentistry Fund [2020-32-0013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to evaluate factors affecting the success rates of MTA pulpotomy in primary molars, finding that treatment in lower primary molars, caries extension, and type of final restoration may influence survival rates.
Objectives The aim of the present study was to evaluate potential factors influencing the success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy performed in primary molars. Materials and methods A total of 347 teeth treated between March 2012 and December 2016 in 258 patients, with a mean age of 5.3 +/- 1.7 years, were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to analyze were used time to failure. Multivariate Cox regression analysis with shared frailty was used to evaluate the clinical factors associated with failures. Results The mean (standard deviation) follow-up period was 35.8 (19.6) months. Within 84 months, the survival rate was 87.1%. In multivariate Cox regression, treatment performed in lower primary molars had a lower survival rate than upper primary molars (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.38,P = 0.012). Caries extension below the cemento-enamel junction had more risk of failure (HR = 10.9,P < 0.001). Final restoration using resin-modified glass ionomer or amalgam (direct filling) had a lower survival rate than stainless steel crown (HR = 5.62,P = 0.002). Conclusions Clinical variables such as arch type, degree of caries extension, and type of final restoration may affect the survival of primary molars following MTA pulpotomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available