Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 661–666 | Cite as

The evaluation of MTA and Biodentine as a pulpotomy materials for carious exposures in primary teeth

  • Burcu Nihan ÇelikEmail author
  • Merve Safa Mutluay
  • Volkan Arıkan
  • Şaziye Sarı
Original Article
  • 373 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

This study examined the effects of MTA and Biodentine on the clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomies performed on primary teeth with carious pulp exposures.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted with 44 mandibular primary molars requiring vital pulpotomy. Carious dentin surrounding the exposure site was used as the inclusion criteria for all teeth, which were randomly divided into two groups according to pulpotomy material [MTA group (n = 24), Biodentine group (n = 20)]. Treatment was followed up clinically and radiologically for 24 months. Pulp canal obliteration was not regarded as a failure.

Results

Clinical and radiographic success rates at the end of 24 months were 100% for the MTA group and 89.4% for the Biodentine group. Success rates did not vary significantly between the groups (p = 0.646). Pulp canal obliteration was observed in two teeth (8.3%) in the MTA group at 6 months, but the teeth were found to be stabilized by 24 months.

Conclusion

The long-term clinical and radiographic success rates obtained in this study indicate that both MTA and Biodentine are appropriate options for pulpotomy treatment of primary teeth with carious exposure in patients whose teeth should be retained for long periods of time.

Clinical relevance

The etiology of exposure determines pulpal response, making it crucial to distinguish between mechanical and carious exposures. The carious exposure is presumed to be accompanied by severe inflammation, which makes the prognosis of treatment unpredictable. Biomaterials can be used especially in cases with carious pulp exposures.

Keywords

Carious exposure Primary teeth Vital pulpotomy Mineral trioxide aggregate Biodentine 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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.

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Ranly DM, Garcia-Godoy F (2000) Current and potential pulp therapies for primary and young permanent teeth. Review. J Dent 28:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, Fayle SA, Moffat MA (2006) Pulp therapy for primary molars. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent 16(Suppl 1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Reference Manual 15/16. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth. http://www.aapd.org/media/policies_guidelines/g_pulp.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016
  4. 4.
    Starkey P (1968) The management of deep caries and pulpally involved teeth in children. In: Goldman HM Current therapy in dentistry, vol.: 3, St Louis: Mosby. Chapter 41. p.:896–941Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cvek M, Cleaton-Jones PE, Austin JC, Andreasen JO (1982) Pulp reactions to exposure after experimental crown fractures or grinding in adult monkeys. J Endod 8:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoshino E, Ando N, Sato M, Kota K (1992) Bacterial invasion of non-exposed dental pulp. Int Endod J 25:2–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Camp JH (2008) Diagnosis dilemmas in vital pulp therapy: treatment for the toothache is changing, especially in young, immature teeth. Review. Pediatr Dent 30:197–205Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beltrame AP, Bolan M, Serratine AC, Rocha MJ (2012) Bacterial intensity and localization in primary molars with caries disease. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 30:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doğan S, Durutürk L, Orhan AI, Batmaz I (2013) Determining treatibility of primary teeth with pulpal exposure. J Clin Pediatr Dent 37:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heys DR, Cox CF, Heys RJ, Avery JK (1981) Histological considerations of direct pulp capping agents. J Dent Res 60:1371–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G B, Spångberg L (2004) Controversies in endodontics. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 15:99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sönmez D, Durutürk L (2008) Ca(OH)2 pulpotomy in primary teeth. Part I: Internal resorption as a complication following pulpotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sönmez D, Durutürk L (2010) Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns. Br Dent J 208: E18, E18; discussion 409Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raslan N, Wetzel WE (2006) Exposed human pulp caused by trauma and/or caries in primary dentition: a histological evaluation. Dent Traumatol 22:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Özdemir Y, Kütükçüler N, Topaloğlu-Ak A, Köse T, Eronat C (2015) Comparative evaluation of pro-inflammatory cytokine levels in pulpotomized primary molars. J Oral Sci 57:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sönmez D, Sarı S, Çetinbaş T (2008) A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod 34:950–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 9:35–37Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rajasekharan S, Martens L, Vandenbulcke J, Jacquet W, Bottenberg P, Cauwels R (2017) Efficacy of three different pulpotomy agents in primary molars—a randomised control trial. Int Endod J 50:215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tziafas D, Smith AJ, Lesot H (2000) Designing new treatment strategies in vital pulp therapy. Review J Dent 28:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Camilleri J (2008) The biocompatibility of modified experimental Portland cements with potential for use in dentistry. Int Endod J 41:1107–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fuks AB (2008) Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and treatment perspectives. Pediatr Dent 30:211–219Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mestieri LB, Gomes-Cornélio AL, Rodrigues EM, Salles LP, Bosso-Martelo R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Tanomaru-Filho M (2015) Biocompatibility and bioactivity of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers in human dental pulp cells. J Appl Oral Sci 23:467–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cuadros-Fernández C, Lorente Rodríguez AI, Sáez-Martínez S, García-Binimelis J, About I, Mercadé M (2016) Short-term treatment outcome of pulpotomies in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 20:1639–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Camilleri J, Sorrentino F, Damidot D (2013) Investigation of the hydration and bioactivity of radiopacified tricalcium silicate cement, Biodentine and MTA Angelus. Dent Mater 29:580–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim JR, Nosrat A, Fouad AF (2015) Interfacial characteristics of Biodentine and MTA with dentine in simulated body fluid. J Dent 43:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akçay M, Sari S (2014) The effect of sodium hypochlorite application on the success of calcium hydroxide and mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomies in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 36:316–321Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Akcay M, Sari S, Duruturk L, Gunhan O (2015) Effects of sodium hypoclorite as disinfectant material previous to pulpotomies in primary teeth. Clin Oral Investig 19:803–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parirokh M, Torabinejad M (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review—Part III: Clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod 36:400–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Camilleri J (2014) Color stability of white mineral trioxide aggregate in contact with hypochlorite solution. J Endod 40:436–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 91:1166–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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–e208Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nowicka A, Lipski M, Parafiniuk M, Sporniak-Tutak K, Lichota D, Kosierkiewicz A, Kaczmarek W, Buczkowska-Radlińska J (2013) Response of human dental pulp capped with biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 39:743–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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 26:302–309Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aeinehchi M, Dadvand S, Fayazi S, Bayat-Movahed S (2007) Randomized controlled trial of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol for pulpotomy in primary molar teeth. Int Endod J 40:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doyle TL, Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate produces superior outcomes in vital primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent 32:41–47Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibricevic H, Al-Jame Q (2000) Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow-up. J Clin Pediatr Dent 24:269–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu H, Zhou Q, Qin M (2011) Mineral trioxide aggregate versus calcium hydroxide for pulpotomy in primary molars. Chin J Dent Res 14:121–125Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smaïl-Faugeron V, Courson F, Durieux P, Muller-Bolla M, Glenny AM, Fron Chabouis H (2014) Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD003220.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003220.pub2 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kusum B, Rakesh K, Richa K (2015) Clinical and radiographical evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate, biodentine and propolis as pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Restor Dent Endod 40:276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Katge FA, Patil DP (2017) Comparative analysis of 2 calcium cilicate-based cements (Biodentine and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate) as direct pulp-capping agent in young permanent molars: a split mouth study. J Endod 43:507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB (2001) Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent 23:15–18Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Farsi N, Alamoudi N, Balto K, Mushayt A (2005) Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 29:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Maroto M, Barbería E, Vera V, García-Godoy F (2007) Mineral trioxide aggregate as pulp dressing agent in pulpotomy treatment of primary molars: 42-month clinical study. Am J Dent 20:283–286Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Burcu Nihan Çelik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Merve Safa Mutluay
    • 2
  • Volkan Arıkan
    • 3
  • Şaziye Sarı
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of DentistryAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Vocational School of Health ServicesKırıkkale UniversityKırıkkaleTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of DentistryKırıkkale UniversityKırıkkaleTurkey

Personalised recommendations