Comparative Study of Pulpal Responses to Pulpotomy with Pro Root MTA, RetroMTA, and Thera Cal in Dogs' Teeth
Comparative Study of Pulpal Responses to Pulpotomy with Pro Root MTA, RetroMTA, and Thera Cal in Dogs' Teeth
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.joen.2015.04.007
复制
发表时间：
2015-08-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Song, Je Seon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, Haewon;Shin, Yooseok;Song, Je Seon
简介：本研究旨在评估和比较狗部分活髓切断术模型中对 ProRoot MTA（Dentsply Tulsa Dental，塔尔萨，俄克拉何马州）、RetroMTA（BioMTA，首尔，韩国）和 TheraCal（Bisco Inc，伊利诺斯州 Schamburg）的牙髓反应。方法：对 60 颗小猎犬牙齿进行部分活髓切断术。暴露的牙髓组织随机用 ProRoot MTA (n = 15)、RetroMTA (n = 15)、TheraCal (n = 15) 或临时修复材料作为阴性对照 (n = 15) 盖住。 4周后，拔出牙齿并使用骨钙素和牙本质唾液蛋白进行组织学和免疫组织化学检查。以盲法评估钙化屏障形成、炎症反应和成牙本质细胞层并评分。测量每组新形成的钙化屏障的面积。结果：在大多数 ProRoot MTA 和 RetroMTA 标本中，形成连续的钙化屏障，牙髓在成牙本质细胞层中包含栅栏图案，无炎症。然而，TheraCal 标本的钙化屏障形成质量较低、炎症广泛、成牙本质细胞层形成较差。总体而言，ProRoot MTA 和 RetroMTA 标本中新形成的钙化屏障面积高于 TheraCal 标本。此外，免疫组织化学显示，与 TheraCal 标本相比，ProRoot MTA 和 RetroMTA 标本中的骨钙素和牙本质唾液蛋白更清晰可见。结论：RetroMTA 可以提供 ProRoot MTA 的替代方案。两种材料都产生了性质相似的有利牙髓反应，而 TheraCal 则产生了不太有利的牙髓反应。
Introduction: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare pulpal responses to ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), RetroMTA (BioMTA, Seoul, Korea), and TheraCal (Bisco Inc, Schamburg, IL) in dog partial pulpotomy models. Methods: Partial pulpotomies were performed on 60 beagle teeth. The exposed pulp tissues were randomly capped with either ProRoot MTA (n = 15), RetroMTA (n = 15), TheraCal (n = 15), or interim restorative material as a negative control (n = 15). After 4 weeks, the teeth were extracted and processed for histologic and immunohistochemical examinations using osteocalcin and dentin sialoprotein. Calcific barrier formation, inflammatory reaction, and the odontoblastic layer were evaluated and scored in a blind manner. The areas of newly formed calcific barriers were measured for each group. Results: In most of the ProRoot MTA and RetroMTA specimens, continuous calcific barriers were formed, and the pulps contained palisading patterns in the odontoblastic layer that were free of inflammation. However, the TheraCal specimens had lower quality calcific barrier formation, extensive inflammation, and less favorable odontoblastic layer formation. Overall, areas of newly formed calcific barrier were higher in the ProRoot MTA and RetroMTA specimens than in the TheraCal specimens. Also, immunohistochemistry revealed that osteocalcin and dentin sialoprotein were more clearly visible in the ProRoot MTA and RetroMTA specimens than in the TheraCal specimens. Conclusions: RetroMTA could provide an alternative to ProRoot MTA. Both materials produced favorable pulpal responses that were similar in nature, whereas TheraCal produced less favorable pulpal responses.