Advertisement

Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy medicament: An evidence-based assessment

  • F. K. Ng
  • L. Brearley MesserEmail author
Article

Abstract

Aim: The principles of evidence-based dentistry were used to compare mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), formocresol (FC), ferric sulphate (FS) and calcium hydroxide (CH) as primary molar pulpotomy medicaments. methods: Electronic databases were searched and sieved for relevant papers by examining titles, abstracts and finally full texts. Included were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and clinical trials (CTs) comparing the clinical and radiographic successes of MTA, FC, FS and CH pulpotomies. Data were extracted and common odds ratios (CORs) were derived by fixed effects meta-analysis (direct or indirect MA). Mean clinical and radiographic success rates from relevant study arms were examined. Results: Eighteen RCTs and 10 CTs (total 1,260 molars) were identified to compare MTA and FC. Direct MAs found MTA was significantly more successful clinically (COR=3.11; 95%CI=1.09–8.85) and radiographically (COR=4.50; CI=1.78–11.42) than FC, and clinical and radiographic data confirmed this. Fourteen RCTs and 4 CTs (total 959 molars) were identified to compare MTA and FS. Indirect MAs found no statistically significant difference in clinical successes, but a statistically significant difference in the radiographic successes of MTA and FS (COR=4.69; CI=1.70–12.95). Clinical and radiographic data showed MTA was significantly more successful than FS. Nine RCTs and 7 CTs (total 531 molars) were identified to compare MTA and CH. Indirect MAs found statistically significant differences in the clinical (COR=6.48; CI=1.75–24.0) and radiographic (COR=10.47; CI=3.35-32.76) successes of MTA and CH. Clinical and radiographic data confirmed MTA was significantly more successful than CH. Conclusion: Currently-available evidence suggests MTA compared with FC, FS and CH as a pulpotomy medicament resulted in significantly higher clinical and radiographic successes in all time periods up to exfoliation.

Key words

Evidence-based dentistry mineral trioxide aggregate formocresol ferric sulphate calcium hydroxide 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aeinehchi M, Eslami B, Ghanbariha M, Saffar AS. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and calcium hydroxide as pulp capping agents in human teeth: a preliminary report. Int Endod J 2002;36:225–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agamy HA, Bakry NS, Mounir MMF, Avery DR. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp capping agents in pulpotomized primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:302–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aktoren O, Gencay K. Assessment of glutaraldehyde and formocresol pulpotomies in primary molars. J Dent Res 1997;76(Sp Iss):60(Abstr 372).Google Scholar
  4. Aktoren O, Gencay K. A two-year clinical-radiographic follow-up of the pulpotomies in primary molars. J Dent Res 2000;79:543(Abstr 3193).Google Scholar
  5. Alacam A. Pulpal tissue changes following pulpotomies with formocresol, glutaraldehyde-calcium hydroxide, glutaraldehyde-zinc oxide eugenol pastes in primary teeth. J Pedod 1989;13:123–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Hezaimi K, Naghshbandi J, Oglesby S, Simon JHS, Rotstein I. Human saliva penetration of root canals obturated with two types of mineral trioxide aggregate cements. J Endod 2005;31:453–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Brady K, et al. The constitution of mineral trioxide aggregate. Dent Mater 2005;21:297–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Long-term outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cotes O, Boj JR, Canalda C, Carreras M. Pulpal tissue reaction to formocresol vs ferric sulfate in pulpotomized rat molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1997;21:247–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox CF, Subay RK, Ostro E, Suzuki S, Suzuki SH. Tunnel defects in dentin bridges: their formation following direct pulp capping. Oper Dent 1996;21:4–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuisia ZE, Musselman R, Schneider P, Dumett CJR. A study of mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2001;23:168(Abstr).Google Scholar
  13. Dean JA, Mack RB, Fulkerson BT, Sanders BJ. Comparison of electrosurgical and formocresol pulpotomy procedures in children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:177–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doyle WA, McDonald RE, Mitchell DF. Formocresol versus calcium hydroxide in pulpotomy. J Dent Child 1962;29:86–97.Google Scholar
  15. Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent 2001;23:15–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Farsi N, Alamoudi N, Balto K, Mushayt A. Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:307–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fei AL, Udin RD, Johnson R. A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1991;13:327–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Pulp therapy in the primary dentition. Curr Opin Dent 1991;1:556–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Cleaton-Jones P, Michaeli Y. Pulp response to ferric sulfate, diluted formocresol and IRM in pulpotomized primary baboon teeth. ASDC J Dent Child 1997;64:254–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, Eidelman E. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars. Pediatr Dent 1997;19:327–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldmacher VS, Thilly WD. Formaldehyde is mutagenic for cultured human cells. Mutat Res 1983;116:417–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gruythuysen RJ, Weerheijm KL. Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy with a light cured cavity sealing material after two years. J Dent Child 1997;64:251–3.Google Scholar
  23. Heilig J, Yates J, Siskin M, McKnight J, Turner J. Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy for primary teeth: a clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 1984;108:775–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Brit Med J 2003;327:557–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins JPT, Green S. (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 (updated May 2005). Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm Accessed 31 May 2005.
  26. Hill SD, Berry CW, Seale NS, Kaga M. Comparison of antimicrobial and cytotoxic effects of glutaraldehyde and formocresol. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991;71:89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hingston EJ, Parmar S, Hunter ML. Vital pulpotomy in the primary dentition: attitudes and practices of community dental staff in Wales. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007:17:186–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holan G, Fuks AB, Keltz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalgam. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:212–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Long term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:129–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Huang TH, Yang CC, Ding SJ, et al. Inflammatory cytokines reaction elicited by root-end filling materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2005;73:123–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, et al. Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques-randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2005;84:1144–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ibricevic H, Al-Jame Q. Ferric sulphate and formocresol in pulpotomy of primary molars: long term follow-up study. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003;4:28–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Press release no. 153,15 June 2004. Available at: http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/archives/pr153a.html Accessed 21 February 2006.
  34. ISI Web of Knowledge. Science Citation Index-Expanded database. Available at: http://portal.isiknowledge.com.mate.lib.unimelb.edu.au Accessed 10 October 2005.
  35. Jabbarifar SE, Khademi DD, Ghasemi DD. Success rates of formocresol pulpotomy versus mineral trioxide aggregate in human primary molar tooth. J Res Med Sci 2004;6:55–8.Google Scholar
  36. Kalaskar RR, Damle SG. Comparative evaluation of lyophilized freeze dried platelet derived preparation with calcium hydroxide as pulpotomy agents in primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2004;22:24–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kennedy DB, Kapala JT.: The dental pulp: Biological considerations of protection and treatment; in Braham, RL and Morris, E (eds): Textbook of Pediatric Dentistry. Baltimore, 1st ed. Williams and Wilkins; 1985, pp 237–61.Google Scholar
  38. Kopel HM. Considerations for the direct pulp capping procedure in primary teeth: a review of the literature. J Dent Child 1992;60:141–9.Google Scholar
  39. Landau MJ, Johnsen DC. Pulpal responses to ferric sulfate in monkeys. J Dent Res 1988;67:215(Abstr822).Google Scholar
  40. Loh A, O’Hoy P, Tran X, et al. Evidence-based assessment: evaluation of the formocresol versus ferric sulfate primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:401–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Markovic D, Zivojinovic V, Vucetic M. Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2005;6:133–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Maroto M, Barberia E, Planells P, Garcia-Godoy F. Dentin bridge formation after mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomies in primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18:151–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mejare I. Pulpotomy of primary molars with coronal or total pulpitis using formocresol technique. Scand J Dent Res 1979;87:208–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Milnes AR. Persuasive evidence that formocresol use in pediatric dentistry is safe. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72:247–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Mitchell PJ, Pitt Ford TR, Torabinejad M, McDonald F. Osteoblast biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate. Biomaterials 1999;20:167–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mohamed N. A comparison of two liner materials for use in the ferric sulfate pulpotomy. Unpublished data, personal communication with author (email). March 2006.Google Scholar
  47. Moher D, Jones A, Cook DJ, et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morawa AP, Straffon LH, Han SS, Corpron RE. Clinical evaluation of pulpotomies using dilute formocresol. J Dent Child 1975;42:360–3.Google Scholar
  49. Naik S, Hegde AH. Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy agent in primary molars: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23:13–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ovid. EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Available at: http://gateway.ut.ovid.com.mate.lib.unimelb.edu.au Accessed 10 October 2005.
  51. Ovid. EBM Reviews-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews database. Available at: http://gateway.ut.ovid.com.mate.lib.unimelb.edu.au Accessed 10 October 2005. Ovid. Ovid Medline (R) database. Available at: http://gateway.ut.ovid.com. mate. lib.unimelb.edu.au Accessed 10 October 2005.
  52. Papagiannoulis L. Clinical studies on ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy medicament in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002;3:126–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, Zhou X. Evaluation of the formocresol versus mineral trioxide aggregate primary molar pulpotomy: a meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:40–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prakash C, Chandra S, Jaiswal JN. Formocresol and glutaraldehyde pulpotomies in primary teeth. J Pedod 1989;13:314–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Punwani I, Fadavi S. The efficacy of Pulpfix® glutaraldehyde pulpotomy agent for the treatment of vital primary teeth with carious pulp exposure. J Dent Res 1993;72(Sp Iss):212(Abstr 869).Google Scholar
  56. Ram D, Moskovitz M, Fuks AB. Ferric sulfate versus formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: clinical and radiographic results. J Dent Res 2001;80:1311(Abstr20).Google Scholar
  57. Ranly DM, Horn D. Assessment of systemic distribution and toxicity of formaldehyde following pulpotomy treatment: Part Two. J Dent Child 1987;54:40–4.Google Scholar
  58. Ranly DM. Pulpotomy therapy in primary teeth: new modalities for old rationales. Pediatr Dent 1994;16:403–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ranly D, Garcia-Godoy F. Current and potential pulp therapies for primary and young permanent teeth. J Dent 2000;28:153–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Redig D. Acomparison and evaluation of two formocresol pulpotomy technics utilizing ‘Buckley’s’ formocresol. J Dent Child 1968;35:22–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. RevMan Analyses [Computer program]. Version 1.0 for Windows. In: Review Manager (RevMan). Version 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.Google Scholar
  62. Rivera N, Reyes E, Mazzaoui S, Moron A. Pulpal therapy for primary teeth: formocresol vs electrosurgery: a clinical study. J Dent Child 2003;70:71–3.Google Scholar
  63. Roberts JF. Treatment of vital and non-vital primary molar teeth by one-stage formocresol pulpotomy: clinical success and effect upon age at exfoliation. Int J Paediatr Dent 1996;6:111–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rocha M, Baroni R, Santos L, Girardi K. Ca(OH)2 and MTA pulpotomies in primary teeth: one year results. Int J Paediatr Dent 1999;9(Suppl 1):102(Abstr P5.35).Google Scholar
  65. Rolling I, Thylstrup A. A 3 year follow-up study of pulpotomized primary molars treated with the formocresol technique. Scand J Dent Res 1975;83:47–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rolling I, Lambjerg-Hansen H. Pulp condition of successfully formocresoltreated primary molars. Scand J Dent Res 1978;86:267–72.Google Scholar
  67. Saltzman B, Sigal M, Clokie C, et al. Assessment of a novel alternative to conventional formocresol-zinc oxide eugenol pulpotomy for the treatment of pulpally involved human primary teeth: diode laser-mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15:437–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sasaki H, Ogawa T, Koreeda M, et al. Electrocoagulation extends the indication of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in the primary dentition. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;26:275–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Schroder U, Granath LE. On internal dentine resorption in deciduous molars treated by pulpotomy and capped with calcium hydroxide. Odont Revy 1971;22:179–88.Google Scholar
  70. Schroder U. Effect of an extra-pulpal blood clot on healing following experimental pulpotomy and capping with calcium hydroxide. Odont Revy 1973;24:257–68.Google Scholar
  71. Schroder U. A 2-year follow-up of primary molars, pulpotomised with a gentle technique and capped with calcium hydroxide. Scand J Dent Res 1978;86:273–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 1995;273:408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analysis. Brit Med J 2003;326:472–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sutherland SE. Evidence-based dentistry: Part IV. Research design and levels of evidence. J Can Dent Assoc 2001;67:375–8.Google Scholar
  75. Swenberg JA, Kerns WD, Mitchell RJ, Gralla EJ, Pavkov KL. Induction of squamous cell carcinoma of the rat nasal cavity by inhalation exposure to formaldehyde vapour. Cancer Res 1980;40:3398–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Torabinejad M, Pitt Ford TR, McKendry DJ, et al. Histological assessment of MTA as root end filling in monkeys. J Endod 1997;23:225–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vij R, Coll JA, Shelton P, Farooq NS. Caries control and other variables associated with success of primary molar vital pulp therapy. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:214–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Waterhouse PJ, Nunn JH, Whitworth JM. An investigation of the relative efficacy of Buckley’s formocresol and calcium hydroxide in primary molar vital pulpotomy. Brit Dent J 2000;188:32–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Yildirim T, Gencoglu N, Firat I, Perk C, Guzel O. Histological study of furcation perforations treated with MTA or SuperEBA in dog’s teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:120–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zander HA. Reaction of the pulp to calcium hydroxide. J Dent Res 1939;18:373–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dental ScienceThe University of MelbourneCarlton, MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations