Evaluation and comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and biodentine in primary tooth pulpotomy: Clinical and radiographic study

Abstract

Biodentine showed similar clinical and radiographic results as MTA in the 12-month evaluation and can be safely used as a pulpotomy medicament.

Effectiveness of MTA and Biodentine for Pulpotomy of Molars: A Meta-Analysis

“…Therefore, calcium silicon-based bioactive capping materials such as MTA and the bioactive dentin replacement material Biodentin have been shown to have good biocompatibility, sealing ability, and antibacterial properties [24] . However, compared to MTA, Biodentine has the advantages of easy handling, high viscosity, short setting time, superior mechanical properties, and also does not cause tooth discoloration, which indicate the potential of Biodentine for pulpotomy medication in milk teeth [13][14][15][17][18][19]21] .…”

“…The human oral cavity is home to a wide range of bacteria and saliva is contaminated during pulpotomy, so the use of a rubber barrier or not may have an effect on the outcome, and seven studies included in this Meta-analysis used a rubber barrier [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . Secondly, the use of pulp capping agents with fillers and good restorations on them better ensures closure, five studies included in this meta-analysis [13-14, 18, 20] used glass ions as fillers on pulp capping agents, another four studies [16,17,19,21] used zinc oxide eugenol, eight studies [13][14][15][16][17][18][20][21] used stainless steel restorations, and one study [19] used glass ionomer restorations.…”

“…The human oral cavity is home to a wide range of bacteria and saliva is contaminated during pulpotomy, so the use of a rubber barrier or not may have an effect on the outcome, and seven studies included in this Meta-analysis used a rubber barrier [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . Secondly, the use of pulp capping agents with fillers and good restorations on them better ensures closure, five studies included in this meta-analysis [13-14, 18, 20] used glass ions as fillers on pulp capping agents, another four studies [16,17,19,21] used zinc oxide eugenol, eight studies [13][14][15][16][17][18][20][21] used stainless steel restorations, and one study [19] used glass ionomer restorations. However, stainless steel restorations may cause gingivitis, and in the study by Cuadros-Fernándezde et al [17] , all clinical failure cases suffered from gingivitis, and although there is no clear evidence of an association between stainless steel crowns and gingivitis, the level of oral hygiene in patients with stainless steel crowns had a significant effect on the gingival index [25] .…”

“…Secondly, a limitation of the studies included in this meta-analysis is also the follow-up period of the studies, not all present the same follow-up time, which may affect the reliability of the results when these are ignored. Ahuja et al [13] , Ramanandvignesh et al [20] , Kusum et al [19] assessed clinical and imaging success at 3, 6, and 9 months, Bani et al [14] assessed clinical and imaging success at 6, 12, 18, 24 months, Carti et al [15] evaluated clinical and imaging success rates at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, Çelik et al [16] evaluated clinical and imaging success rates at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, Cuadros-Fernández et al [17] evaluated clinical and imaging success rates at 6 and 12 months, Juneja et al [18] evaluated clinical and imaging success rates at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, Juneja et al, 12, and 18 months, and Rajasekharan et al [20] assessed clinical and imaging success rates at 6, 12, and 18 months. The results of this meta-analysis, while not showing any statistically significant differences between the two groups, the study by Çelik et al [16] found lower success rates in the Biodentine group over time, suggesting that differences between success rates may vary due to longer follow-up periods.…”

“…Nine included studies [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] compared the efficacy of MTA and Biodentine based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which nine studies documented clinical success and imaging success at 6 months, five studies documented clinical success and imaging success at 12 months, and two documented clinical success and imaging success at 24 months. Specific characteristics are shown in Tables 2 and 3.…”