A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study
Background: Preservation of pulpal vitality is of paramount importance as the vital functioning pulp is capable of initiating a unique reparative capacity. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars. Materials and Methods: This in vivo...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Dental Research Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2022;volume=19;issue=1;spage=102;epage=102;aulast=Manohar |
| _version_ | 1797955083638407168 |
|---|---|
| author | Swati Manohar Negar Bazaz G Neeraja Priya Subramaniam N Sneharaj |
| author_facet | Swati Manohar Negar Bazaz G Neeraja Priya Subramaniam N Sneharaj |
| author_sort | Swati Manohar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Preservation of pulpal vitality is of paramount importance as the vital functioning pulp is capable of initiating a unique reparative capacity. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars.
Materials and Methods: This in vivo study included a total of 120 primary molars from 30 healthy children aged 3–9 years for regenerative pulpotomy procedure. The teeth were then divided by the lottery method (chits with names of materials on it) into four groups so that each child received all four of the regenerative materials; Group 1: Biodentine (BD)™, Group II: Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Plus (MTA Plus™), Group III: Retro MTA (Retro MTA®), and Group IV: Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) cement. All the primary molars (1st/2nd molars) were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Data were subjected to the statistical analysis using the Chi-square test. The level of significance was considered as P < 0.05.
Results: Clinical evaluation showed 100% success with BD™ and CEM cement; whereas 96.2% success was seen with MTA Plus™ and Retro MTA®. On radiographic evaluation, MTA Plus™ and CEM cement showed 96.2% success, whereas BD™ and Retro MTA® showed 92.59% success rate.
Conclusion: All four regenerative materials showed high success in the pulpotomy of primary molars. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T23:27:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a97f53079cc841d1b58faec84527afdc |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1735-3327 2008-0255 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T23:27:39Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Dental Research Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-a97f53079cc841d1b58faec84527afdc2023-01-12T11:22:34ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsDental Research Journal1735-33272008-02552022-01-0119110210210.4103/1735-3327.363532A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo studySwati ManoharNegar BazazG NeerajaPriya SubramaniamN SneharajBackground: Preservation of pulpal vitality is of paramount importance as the vital functioning pulp is capable of initiating a unique reparative capacity. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars. Materials and Methods: This in vivo study included a total of 120 primary molars from 30 healthy children aged 3–9 years for regenerative pulpotomy procedure. The teeth were then divided by the lottery method (chits with names of materials on it) into four groups so that each child received all four of the regenerative materials; Group 1: Biodentine (BD)™, Group II: Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Plus (MTA Plus™), Group III: Retro MTA (Retro MTA®), and Group IV: Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) cement. All the primary molars (1st/2nd molars) were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Data were subjected to the statistical analysis using the Chi-square test. The level of significance was considered as P < 0.05. Results: Clinical evaluation showed 100% success with BD™ and CEM cement; whereas 96.2% success was seen with MTA Plus™ and Retro MTA®. On radiographic evaluation, MTA Plus™ and CEM cement showed 96.2% success, whereas BD™ and Retro MTA® showed 92.59% success rate. Conclusion: All four regenerative materials showed high success in the pulpotomy of primary molars.http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2022;volume=19;issue=1;spage=102;epage=102;aulast=Manoharmineral trioxide aggregateprimary teethpulpotomytricalcium silicate |
| spellingShingle | Swati Manohar Negar Bazaz G Neeraja Priya Subramaniam N Sneharaj A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study Dental Research Journal mineral trioxide aggregate primary teeth pulpotomy tricalcium silicate |
| title | A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study |
| title_full | A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study |
| title_fullStr | A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study |
| title_short | A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study |
| title_sort | comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars an in vivo study |
| topic | mineral trioxide aggregate primary teeth pulpotomy tricalcium silicate |
| url | http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2022;volume=19;issue=1;spage=102;epage=102;aulast=Manohar |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT swatimanohar acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT negarbazaz acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT gneeraja acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT priyasubramaniam acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT nsneharaj acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT swatimanohar comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT negarbazaz comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT gneeraja comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT priyasubramaniam comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy AT nsneharaj comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy |