4.5 Article

Comparative Analysis of 2 Calcium Silicate-based Cements (Biodentine and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate) as Direct Pulp-capping Agent in Young Permanent Molars: A Split Mouth Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 507-513

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.026

关键词

Biodentine; dentin bridge; direct pulp capping; MTA; permanent molars

资金

  1. Angelus Industria de Produtos Odontologicos S/A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare Biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) for direct pulp capping in young permanent molars by clinical and radiographic evaluation in 7- to 9-year-old children. Methods: In 50 patients, 29 patients with bilateral asymptomatic first permanent molars with carious involvement were selected. According to split mouth design, these patients were then divided into 2 groups, Biodentine group (right side) and MTA group (left side). The pulp-capping procedure was performed by using Biodentine and MTA in 58 asymptomatic bilateral permanent molars with pulp exposure. At each recall (baseline, 6 and 12 months), treatment outcome was assessed clinically through pulpal sensitivity tests as well as radiographically to evaluate dentin bridge formation. Results: The study reported 100% success rate with both Biodentine and MTA at baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up on the basis of clinical and radiographic parameters. These findings were statistically non-significant (P < .05) between both groups (Biodentine and MTA). Radiographically, dentin bridge formation was not evident with both groups at baseline, but it was evident after 6- and 12-month follow-up. These findings were statistically non-significant (P < .05) in both Biodentine and MTA groups. Conclusions: This study reported 100% success rate with both MTA and Biodentine when used as direct pulp-capping agent in first permanent molars in 7- to 9-year-old children. The major limitations of the study were smaller sample size and short follow-up period.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据