Clinical and radiographic comparison of biodentine, mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulpotomy agents in primary molars
- 436 Downloads
To compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of three different pulpotomy agents in primary molars after 18 months.
The study was carried out with 51 primary molars of children aged 5–9 years old. The teeth were randomly assigned to the experimental or control groups. After coronal pulp removal and haemostasis, the remaining pulp tissue was covered with Biodentine® or mineral trioxide aggregate in the experimental groups. In the control group, formocresol was placed with a cotton pellet over the pulp tissue for 5 min and after removal the pulp tissue was covered with zinc oxide–eugenol (ZOE) paste. All teeth were immediately restored with reinforced ZOE base and resin modified glass-ionomer cement, and later with pre-formed metal crowns. Follow-up assessments were carried out after 3, 6, 12 and 18 months.
Forty-five teeth were available for follow up at the end of 18 months. All of the available teeth for mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine® were clinically successful, as were 73.3% of the FC group. Radiographic success rate for the formocresol group at 18 months follow up was 73.3, 100% for mineral trioxide aggregate and 86.6% for Biodentine® group.
Mineral Trioxide aggregate and Biodentine® showed more favourable results than formocresol.
KeywordsBiodentine Mineral trioxide aggregate Formocresol Pulpotomy
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was self-funded.
Conflict of interest
The authors declares that there is no competing interest.
Humans were involved in this study. All the procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution.
Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in the study.
- Eidelman E, Odont, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomised primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent 2001; 23:15–18.Google Scholar
- Guelmann M, Bookmyer K, Villalta P, García-Godoy F. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child. 2004;71:209–11.Google Scholar
- Niranjani K, Prasad MG, Vasa AAK, et al. Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using mineral trioxide aggregate, laser and biodentine an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9:35–7.Google Scholar
- Parisey I, Ghoddusi J, Forghani M. A review on vital pulp therapy in primary teeth. Iran Endod J. 2015;10(1):6–15.Google Scholar
- Smaïl-Faugeron V, Courson F, Durieux P, et al. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6(8):CDOO322O.Google Scholar
- Soundappan S, Sundaramurthy JL, Natanasabapathy V. Biodentine vs. mineral trioxide aggregate vs. intermediate restorative material for retrograde root end filling: an invitro study. J Dent. 2014;11:143–9.Google Scholar
- Walker LA, Sanders BJ, Jones JE, et al. Current trends in pulp therapy: a survey analyzing pulpotomy techniques taught in paediatric dental residency programs. J Dent Child. 2013;80(1):31–5.Google Scholar