Treatment Outcomes of Primary Molars Direct Pulp Capping after 20 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Treatment Outcomes of Primary Molars Direct Pulp Capping after 20 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial
复制标题
乳磨牙直接盖髓术 20 个月后的治疗结果：随机对照试验
DOI：
10.22037/iej.v8i4.4464
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Asgary
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Fallahinejad Ghajari;Tahereh Asgharian Jeddi;S. Iri;S. Asgary
简介：这项随机对照试验的目的是比较ProRoot矿物质三氧化物聚合体(MTA)和富钙混合物(CEM)直接盖髓(DPC)的放射学和临床成功率。方法与材料选择42颗(21对)无症状龋损的乳磨牙，随机分为两组，每组20颗。牙髓暴露由同一盲人操作人员用MTA或CEM覆盖，然后用银汞合金修复。在20个月的随访中评估放射学和临床的成功。数据采用McNemar检验进行统计学分析。结果19例患者获得20个月随访，CEM组仅拔除1颗失败牙。所有可用牙均无症状，但两组的最终评价成功率分别为89%和95%，差异无统计学意义(P=0.360)。采用最坏情况进行缺失值分析，假设CEM组有2例丢失病例失败，MTA组唯一丢失病例为治疗成功，则CEM和MTA的成功率分别为81%(CI 95%：0.72~0.9)和95%(CI 95%：0.85~1)，差异无统计学意义(P=0.078)。在相反的情况下，MTA和CEM的成功率分别为86%(CI 95%：0.78~0.94)和90%(CI 95%：0.82~0.98)，同样没有统计学差异(P=0.479)。结论MTA和CEM生物材料修复乳磨牙DPC的效果相似，CEM可作为MTA的替代材料。
Introduction The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the radiographic and clinical success rates of direct pulp capping (DPC) using ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or calcium enriched mixture (CEM). Methods and Materials A total of 42 symptom-free carious vital primary molars (21 pairs) were selected in this split mouth trial and randomly pulpotomized in two experimental groups. Pinpoint pulp exposures were covered by the same blinded operator with MTA or CEM, and then restored by amalgam. Radiographic and clinical successes were evaluated at 20 month follow-up. Data were statistically analyzed using McNemar test. Results Nineteen patients were available for 20-month follow-up; only one failed tooth was extracted in the CEM group. All available teeth were symptom-free, however, the final evaluated success rate was 89% in CEM (CI 95%: 0.82-0.96) and 95% in MTA (CI 95%: 0.85-1) groups without statistical difference (P=0.360). Worst case scenario was applied for missing value analysis; assuming that the 2 lost cases in CEM group had failed and the only lost case in MTA group was due to treatment success, as a result the success of CEM and MTA were 81% (CI 95%: 0.72-0.90) and 95% (CI 95%:0.85-1), respectively, with no statistical difference (P=0.078). In the reverse scenario, the success of MTA and CEM were 86% (CI 95%: 0.78-0.94) and 90% (CI 95%: 0.82-0.98), respectively; again with no statistical difference (P=0.479). Conclusion Effectiveness of MTA and CEM biomaterials for primary molars’ DPC was similar; CEM can be a suitable alternative for MTA.