Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manohar, Swati, Bazaz, Negar, Neeraja, G., Subramaniam, Priya, Sneharaj, N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9811967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36618772
_version_ 1784863635025166336
author Manohar, Swati
Bazaz, Negar
Neeraja, G.
Subramaniam, Priya
Sneharaj, N
author_facet Manohar, Swati
Bazaz, Negar
Neeraja, G.
Subramaniam, Priya
Sneharaj, N
author_sort Manohar, Swati
collection PubMed
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 (1(st)/2(nd) 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9811967
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98119672023-01-05 A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study Manohar, Swati Bazaz, Negar Neeraja, G. Subramaniam, Priya Sneharaj, N Dent Res J (Isfahan) Original Article 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 (1(st)/2(nd) 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9811967/ /pubmed/36618772 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Dental Research Journal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Manohar, Swati
Bazaz, Negar
Neeraja, G.
Subramaniam, Priya
Sneharaj, N
A comparative evaluation of four regenerative materials for pulpotomy in primary molars: An in vivo study
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 Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9811967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36618772
work_keys_str_mv AT manoharswati acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT bazaznegar acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT neerajag acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT subramaniampriya acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT sneharajn acomparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT manoharswati comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT bazaznegar comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT neerajag comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT subramaniampriya comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy
AT sneharajn comparativeevaluationoffourregenerativematerialsforpulpotomyinprimarymolarsaninvivostudy