Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 1639–1645 | Cite as

Short-term treatment outcome of pulpotomies in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine: a randomized clinical trial

  • C. Cuadros-Fernández
  • A. I. Lorente Rodríguez
  • S. Sáez-Martínez
  • J. García-Binimelis
  • I. About
  • M. Mercadé
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

An ideal pulpotomy agent for primary molars has been sought for many years. Recently, new materials that allow regeneration of residual pulp tissue have been developed. In this study, we compared the preliminary clinical results obtained using Biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) as pulp-dressing agents in pulpotomies of primary molars.

Methods

A randomized clinical study was performed in children aged 4–9 years with at least one primary tooth with decay or caries requiring pulp treatment. A total of 90 primary molars requiring pulpotomy were randomly allocated to the MTA or Biodentine group, and 84 pulpotomies were performed. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were undertaken 6 and 12 months after treatment. All teeth were restored with a reinforced zinc oxide–eugenol base and stainless steel crowns. Statistical analysis using Fisher’s exact test was performed to determine the significant differences between the groups.

Results

A total of four clinical failures were observed; all involved gingival inflammation. The clinical success rate in the MTA Group after 12 months was 92 % (36/39), whereas the Biodentine Group obtained 97 % (38/39) (p = 0.346). All radiographic failures were observed at the 12-month follow-up evaluation. One molar from MTA Group showed internal resorption obtaining a radiographic success rate of 97 % (38/39). Two molars from the Biodentine Group showed radiographic failure (1 internal resorption and 1 periradicular radiolucency) obtaining a radiographic success rate of 95 % (37/39).

Conclusions

Biodentine showed similar clinical results as MTA with comparable success rates when used for pulpotomies of primary molars. However, longer follow-up studies are required to confirm our findings.

Clinical relevance

This article demonstrates the effectiveness of Biodentine as a primary teeth pulpotomy material, performing similar results as MTA at 12-months evaluation.

Keywords

Biodentine Mineral trioxide aggregate Primary molar Pulpotomy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

There were no conflicts of interests.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Fuks AB (2008) Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and treatment perspectives. J Endod 34(7 Suppl):S18–S24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Definitions AAPD, Policies OH, Guidelines C (2013) Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. AAPD Reference Manual 35:222–229Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen JW, Jorden M (2010) Materials for primary tooth pulp treatment: the present and the future. Endod Topics 23:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smaïl-Faugeron V, Courson F, Durieux P, Muller-Bolla M, Glenny AM, Fron Chabouis H (2014) Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6;8:CD003220.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shayegan A, Petein M, Abbeele AV (2008) Beta-tricalcium phosphate, white mineral trioxide aggregate, white Portland cement, ferric sulfate, and formocresol used as pulpotomy agents in primary pig teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 105:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sakai VT, Moretti AB, Oliveira TM, Fornetti AP, Santos CF, Machado MA, et al. (2009) Pulpotomy of human primary molars with MTA and Portland cement: a randomised controlled trial. Br Dent J 207:E5discussion 128-129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torabinejad M, Parirokh M (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review—part II: leakage and biocompatibility investigations. J Endod 36:190–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Accorinte MLR, Loguercio AD, Reis A, et al. (2008) Response of human dental pulp capped with MTA and calcium hydroxide powder. Oper Dent 33:488–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tomson PL, Grover LM, Lumley PJ, Sloan AJ, Smith AJ, Cooper PR (2007) Dissolution of bio-active dentine matrix components by mineral trioxide aggregate. J Dent 35:636–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laurent P, Camps J, About I (2012) Biodentine(TM) induces TGF-beta1 release from human pulp cells and early dental pulp mineralization. Int Endod J 45:439–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Begue-Kirn C, Smith AJ, Ruch JV, et al. (1992) Effects of dentin proteins, transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF beta 1) and bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) on the differentiation of odontoblast in vitro. Int J Dev Biol 36:491–503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shirvani A, Asgary S (2014) Mineral trioxide aggregate versus formocresol pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clin Oral Investig 18:1023–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin PY, Chen HS, Wang YH, Tu YK (2014) Primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent 42:1060–1077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stringhini Junior E1, Vitcel ME, Oliveira LB (2015) Evidence of pulpotomy in primary teeth comparing MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, and electrosurgery with formocresol. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 16:303–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grech L, Mallia B, Camilleri J (2013) Investigation of the physical properties of tricalcium silicate cement-based root-end filling materials. Dent Mater 29:e20–e28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shayegan A, Jurysta C, Atash R, Petein M, Abbeele AV (2012) Biodentine used as a pulp-capping agent in primary pig teeth. Pediatr Dent 34:e202–e208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nowicka A, Wilk G, Lipski M, Kołecki J, Buczkowska-Radlińska J (2015) Tomographic evaluation of reparative dentin formation after direct pulp capping with Ca(OH)2, MTA, biodentine, and dentin bonding system in human teeth. J Endod 41:1234–1240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group (2011) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 9:672–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Definitions AAPD, Policies OH, Guidelines C (2012) 2013 Guideline on use of local anesthesia for pediatric dental patients. AAPD Reference Manual 34:183–189Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, et al. (2005) Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques–randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 84:1144–1148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doyle TL, Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate produces superior outcomes in vital primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent 32:41–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mielke Jr CH, Kaneshiro MM, Maher IA, Weiner JM, Rapaport SI (1969) The standardized normal Ivy bleeding time and its prolongation by aspirin. Blood 34(2):204–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    HP Compaq LA2205wg 22-inch Widescreen LCD Monitor Espeficiations. http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04110977.pdf Accessed 28 July 2015.
  24. 24.
    Agamy HA, Bakry NS, Mounir MM, Avery DR (2004) Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp-capping agents in pulpotomized primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 26:302–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farsi N, Alamoudi N, Balto K, Mushayt A (2005) Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 29:307–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB (2005) Long-term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatr Dent 27:129–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moretti AB, Sakai VT, Oliveira TM, Fornetti AP, Santos CF, Machado MA, et al. (2008) The effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium hydroxide and formocresol for pulpotomies in primary teeth. Int Endod J 41:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T (2008) A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod 34:950–955CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ansari G, Ranjpour M (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy of primary teeth: a 2-year follow-up. Int Endod J 43:413–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zealand CM, Briskie DM, Botero TM, Boynton JR, Hu JC (2010) Comparing grey mineral trioxide aggregate and diluted formocresol in pulpotomized human primary molars. Pediatr Dent 32:393–399PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zanini M, Sautier JM, Berdal A, Simon S (2012) Biodentine induces immortalized murine pulp cell differentiation into odontoblast-like cells and stimulates biomineralization. J Endod 38:1220–1226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laurent P, Camps J, De Méo M, Déjou J, About I (2008) Induction of specific cell responses to a Ca(3)SiO(5)-based posterior restorative material. Dent Mater 24:1486–1494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Rossi A, Silva LA, Gatón-Hernández P, Sousa-Neto MD, Nelson-Filho P, Silva RA, de Queiroz AM (2014) Comparison of pulpal responses to pulpotomy and pulp capping with biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate in dogs. J Endod 40:1362–1369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parirokh M, Torabinejad M (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review–part III: clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod 36:400–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koubi G, Colon P, Franquin JC, Hartmann A, Richard G, Faure MO, Lambert G (2013) Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, Biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth—a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 17:243–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tran XV, Gorin C, Willig C, Baroukh B, Pellat B, Decup F, Opsahl Vital S, Chaussain C, Boukpessi T (2012) Effect of a calcium-silicate-based restorative cement on pulp repair. J Dent Res 91:1166–1171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mathieu S, Jeanneau C, Sheibat-Othman N, Kalaji N, Fessi H, About I (2013) Usefulness of controlled release of growth factors in investigating the early events of dentin-pulp regeneration. J Endod 39:228–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bhavana V, Chaitanya KP, Gandi P, Patil J, Dola B, Reddy RB (2015) Evaluation of antibacterial and antifungal activity of new calcium-based cement (Biodentine) compared to MTA and glass ionomer cement. J Conserv Dent 18:44–46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Koruyucu M, Topcuoglu N, Tuna EB, Ozel S, Gencay K, Kulekci G, Seymen F (2015) An assessment of antibacterial activity of three pulp capping materials on Enterococcus faecalis by a direct contact test: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 9:240–245CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Camps J, Déjou J, Rémusat M, About I (2000) Factors influencing pulpal response to cavity restorations. Dent Mater 16:432–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fernandez CC, Martinez SS, Jimeno FG, Lorente Rodriguez AI, Mercade M (2013) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the use of four dressing materials in pulpotomized primary molars: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Int J Paediatr Dent 23:400–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB (2001) Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent 23:15–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Erdem AP, Guven Y, Balli B, et al. (2011) Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and for- mocresol pulpotomies: a 24-month study. Pediatr Dent 33:165–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sharaf AA, Farsi NM (2004) A clinical and radiographic evaluation of stainless steel crowns for primary molars. J Dent 32:27–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Niranjani K, Prasad MG, Vasa AA, Divya G, Thakur MS, Saujanya K (2015) Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using Mineral Trioxide Aggregate(®), Laser and Biodentine(TM)—an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 9:ZC35–ZC37PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Cuadros-Fernández
    • 1
  • A. I. Lorente Rodríguez
    • 1
  • S. Sáez-Martínez
    • 1
  • J. García-Binimelis
    • 1
  • I. About
    • 2
  • M. Mercadé
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric DentistryUniversitat Internacional de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, ISM UMRMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Department of Restorative Dentistry and EndodonticsUniversitat Internacional de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations