Efficacy of three different pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a randomized control trial

• Published in: International endodontic journal 2017-03, Vol.50 (3), p.215-228
• Main Authors: Rajasekharan, S., Martens, L. C., Vandenbulcke, J., Jacquet, W., Bottenberg, P., Cauwels, R. G. E. C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aluminum Compounds; Biodentine; Calcium Compounds; Child; Child, Preschool; Creosote; Dental Caries - diagnostic imaging; Dental Caries - therapy; Dental pulp; Dentistry; Drug Combinations; Endodontics; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hydrocarbons, Iodinated; Intention to Treat Analysis; Male; mineral trioxide aggregate; Molar; Molars; Motivation; Oxides; Pain; Pulp Capping and Pulpectomy Agents; pulp therapy; Pulpotomy; Radiography, Dental; Silicates; Teeth; Tempophore; Thymol; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0143-2885; 1365-2591
• DOI: 10.1111/iej.12619

Aim To compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of Biodentine™, ProRoot® White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (WMTA) and Tempophore™ as pulpotomy medicaments in the treatment of carious primary molars. Methodology A parallel‐design, randomized controlled trial was developed. Patients above 3 years of age with carious primary teeth with vital pulps without spontaneous pain or history of swelling were included. Fifty‐eight patients (82 teeth) with a mean age of 4.79 ± 1.23 years were included. The teeth were randomized, blinded and allocated to one of the three groups (Biodentine™, ProRoot® WMTA or Tempophore™) for pulpotomy treatment. All teeth were followed up clinically and radiographically (after 6, 12 and 18 months) by two blinded calibrated investigators. A generalized estimating equation (GEE), Wald chi‐square test and an intention‐to‐treat analysis (ITT) with ‘last carried forward’ approach were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences v 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NK, USA). Results Forty‐six patients and 69 teeth were available for follow‐up after 18 months. Clinical success (radiographic success in parenthesis) was 95.24% (94.4%), 100% (90.9%) and 95.65% (82.4%) in the Biodentine™, ProRoot® WMTA and Tempophore™ groups, respectively, but the difference was not significant. Pulp canal obliteration was significantly different amongst the experimental groups as the Biodentine™ group exhibited significantly more pulp canal obliteration when compared to the ProRoot® WMTA group at 6 months (P = 0.008) and 18 months (P = 0.003). Conclusions After 18‐month follow‐up, there was no significant difference between Biodentine™ in comparison with ProRoot® WMTA or Tempophore™.