3.8 Article

Clinical, radiographic and histologic analysis of the effects of pulp capping materials used in pulpotomies of human primary teeth

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 65-71

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-013-0015-x

Keywords

Mineral trioxide aggregate; Calcium hydroxide; Portland cement; Primary teeth; Pulpotomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To compare the clinical, radiographic and histological responses of the pulp to mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium hydroxide (CH) and Portland cement (PC) when used as a pulpotomy agent in human primary teeth. Study design Forty-five mandibular primary molar teeth were randomly assigned to CH, MTA or PC groups and treated by pulpotomy technique. Methods The teeth were treated by conventional pulpotomy technique, differing only in the capping material for each group. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were recorded at 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up. Teeth in the regular exfoliation period were further processed for histologic analysis. Statistics Data were tested using parametric tests at a significance level of 5 %. The histological results were expressed descriptively. Results Clinically and radiographically, the MTA and PC groups showed 100 % success rates at 6, 12 and 24 months. In CH group, several teeth presented clinical and radiographic failures detected throughout the followup period, and internal resorption was a frequent radiographic finding. Histologic analysis revealed the presence of dentine-like mineralised material deposition obliterating the root canal in the PC and MTA groups. CH group presented, in most of the sections, necrotic areas in the root canals. Conclusions MTA and PC may serve as effective materials for pulpotomies of primary teeth as compared to CH. Although our results are very encouraging, further studies and longer follow-up assessments are needed in order to determine the safe clinical indication of Portland cement.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available