Bioceramic mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy

Journal

Dental research journal
ISSN: 1735-3327
Titre abrégé: Dent Res J (Isfahan)
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101471186

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 27 08 2021
revised: 31 03 2022
accepted: 11 07 2022
entrez: 25 11 2022
pubmed: 26 11 2022
medline: 26 11 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Pulpotomy is one of the common vital pulp therapy procedures for primary molars. The present trend in pulpotomy materials is to use regenerative materials that promote dentinogenesis. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a very popular pulpotomy material. However, it has some limitations including difficult handling characteristics and long setting time. Tricalcium silicate cements evolved, in which bioceramic cements came into existence, have better properties than MTA. The aims and objectives of the study are to evaluate the efficacy of bioceramic putty with MTA as a pulp medicament in primary molars. In this randomized At 3-month interval, the success rates were 96.7% and 93.1% with bioceramic and MTA groups, respectively. At 6- and 12-month interval, the success rates were 93.3% and 93.1% with bioceramic and MTA groups, respectively. However, the difference in success rate between the groups was statistically not significant at all the time intervals ( Bioceramic putty exhibited comparable results to MTA. Hence, it can be considered alternative pulpotomy agent.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Pulpotomy is one of the common vital pulp therapy procedures for primary molars. The present trend in pulpotomy materials is to use regenerative materials that promote dentinogenesis. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a very popular pulpotomy material. However, it has some limitations including difficult handling characteristics and long setting time. Tricalcium silicate cements evolved, in which bioceramic cements came into existence, have better properties than MTA. The aims and objectives of the study are to evaluate the efficacy of bioceramic putty with MTA as a pulp medicament in primary molars.
Materials and Methods UNASSIGNED
In this randomized
Results UNASSIGNED
At 3-month interval, the success rates were 96.7% and 93.1% with bioceramic and MTA groups, respectively. At 6- and 12-month interval, the success rates were 93.3% and 93.1% with bioceramic and MTA groups, respectively. However, the difference in success rate between the groups was statistically not significant at all the time intervals (
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Bioceramic putty exhibited comparable results to MTA. Hence, it can be considered alternative pulpotomy agent.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36426282
pii: DRJ-19-84
pmc: PMC9680690

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

84

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Dental Research Journal.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.

Références

J Endod. 2009 Oct;35(10):1387-90
pubmed: 19801236
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Mar;109(3):e122-5
pubmed: 20219576
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011 Nov;112(5):657-61
pubmed: 21778087
J Endod. 2009 Jul;35(7):1051-5
pubmed: 19567333
J Endod. 2016 Jan;42(1):101-5
pubmed: 26410154
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 May;18(4):1023-1030
pubmed: 24452827
J Endod. 2011 Jun;37(6):793-8
pubmed: 21787491
Pediatr Dent. 2011 Mar-Apr;33(2):165-70
pubmed: 21703067
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Dec;102(6):e40-4
pubmed: 17138165
Iran Endod J. 2008 Summer;3(3):45-9
pubmed: 24146670
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015 Jun 01;16(6):486-503
pubmed: 26323453
J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Apr;9(4):ZC35-7
pubmed: 26023640
J Endod. 2009 Feb;35(2):221-4
pubmed: 19166777
Contemp Clin Dent. 2010 Jul;1(3):146-51
pubmed: 22114405
Iran Endod J. 2015 Winter;10(1):6-15
pubmed: 25598803
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Jan;10(1):ZC67-70
pubmed: 26894180
Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):439-48
pubmed: 22188368
Acta Biomater. 2014 Dec;10(12):5156-5168
pubmed: 25182220
Acta Biomater. 2010 Apr;6(4):1569-74
pubmed: 19896564
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 May 01;17(5):349-53
pubmed: 27443359
J Endod. 2011 Nov;37(11):1542-6
pubmed: 22000459
J Endod. 2010 Mar;36(3):400-13
pubmed: 20171353
Pediatr Dent. 2001 Jan-Feb;23(1):15-8
pubmed: 11242724
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2005 Summer;29(4):307-11
pubmed: 16161395
Dent Mater. 2008 Feb;24(2):149-64
pubmed: 17586038
Clujul Med. 2016;89(4):470-473
pubmed: 27857514
Int Endod J. 2013 Mar;46(3):198-204
pubmed: 23136828
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Apr;105(4):536-42
pubmed: 18329589
Pediatr Dent. 2005 Mar-Apr;27(2):129-36
pubmed: 15926290
J Microsc Ultrastruct. 2021 Feb 09;9(1):7-11
pubmed: 33850706

Auteurs

T Kiranmayi (T)

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Meghna Dental College, Nizamabad, Telangana, India.

Charan Teja Vemagiri (CT)

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, GSL Dental College and Hospital, Rajahmahendravaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Chandrasekhar Rayala (C)

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Vinay Chandrappa (V)

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Vishnu Dental College and Hospital, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Haritha Bathula (H)

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Meghna Dental College, Nizamabad, Telangana, India.

Anusha Challagulla (A)

Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Meghna Dental College, Nizamabad, Telangana, India.

Classifications MeSH