4.5 Article

Clinical Outcomes for Teeth Treated with Electrospun Poly(ε-caprolactone) Fiber Meshes/Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Direct Pulp Capping

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 628-636

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.01.007

关键词

Clinical outcome; dentin bridge; direct pulp capping; mineral trioxide aggregate; pulp-exposed permanent teeth; poly(epsilon-caprolactone) fiber meshes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a biocompatible material for direct pulp capping. This study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of pulp-exposed teeth treated with either poly(e-caprolactone) fiber mesh (PCL-FM) as a barrier for MTA (so-called PCL-FM/MTA) or MTA direct pulp capping. Methods: Sixty human vital teeth were evenly divided into 4 groups (n = 15 in each group). Teeth in groups 1 and 3 had pulp exposure <1 mm in diameter, whereas teeth in groups 2 and 4 had pulp exposure of 1-1.5 mm in diameter. Teeth in groups 1 and 2 were treated with PCL-FM/MTA direct pulp capping, and those in groups 3 and 4 were treated with MTA direct pulp capping. Results: Teeth treated with PCL-FM/MTA direct pulp capping needed a significantly shorter mean duration for dentin bridge formation than teeth treated with MTA direct pulp capping. Moreover, teeth with pulp exposure <1.0 mm in diameter needed a significantly shorter mean duration for dentin bridge formation than teeth with pulp exposure of 1-1.5 mm in diameter after either PCL-FM/MTA or MTA direct pulp capping treatment. In addition, teeth treated with PCL-FM/MTA direct pulp capping formed an approximately 3-fold thicker dentin bridge than teeth treated with MTA direct pulp capping 8 weeks or 3 months later. Furthermore, none of the teeth treated with PCL-FM/MTA direct pulp capping showed tooth discoloration after treatment for 3 months. Conclusions: PCL-FM/MTA is a better combination material than MTA alone for direct pulp capping of human permanent teeth.

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