Search

Pulpotomy is the total amputation of coronal pulp tissue and subsequent placement of a pulpotomy agent over the root canal orifices, followed by a coronal seal. The most suitable pulpotomy agent for successful treatment outcomes remains controversial. To evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic success of calcium hydroxide (CH) and Biodentine (BD) in primary tooth pulpotomy at 6 and 12 months. An automatised search of the PubMed-Medline, Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases was performed to identify scientific articles on primary tooth pulpotomies with either calcium hydroxide (CH) or Biodentine (BD) as a pulpotomy agent, published until January 2024. The software used for meta-analysis was R 4.3.1 (R Core Team, 2023). Of the 594 potentially eligible articles, 14 met the inclusion criteria: seven articles on CH pulpotomy and seven articles on BD pulpotomy with 6- and 12-months of follow-up. The meta-analysis concluded a mean clinical success rate of 91.8 % at 6 months and 79.0 % at 12 months for the CH group, and 99.2 % at 6 months and 98.8 % at 12 months for the BD group. In terms of the mean radiographic success, the CH group achieved 74.2 % at 6 months and 63.7 % at 12 months, whereas the BD group achieved 99.4 % at 6 months and 98.4 % at 12 months. In comparison, the meta-analysis concluded a marginally significant difference in clinical success in favour of the BD group at 6 months (p = 0.091). At 12 months, clinical success was significant in the BD group (p = 0.023). Regarding radiographic success, a significant difference in favour of the BD group was observed at 6 (p = 0.008) and 12 months (p < 0.001). BD showed significantly higher clinical and radiographic success than CH in pulpotomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: With success rates comparable to that of root canal treatment, vital pulp therapy (VPT) has gained clinical interest and has been used in the management of young permanent teeth with inflamed pulps. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the radiographic success of VPT in young first permanent molars 24 months post-treatment and correlate findings with tooth and treatment-related characteristics. Materials and Methods: Dental records of all patients with first permanent molars which received VPT in the Department of Paediatric Dentistry (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) were retrieved. Demographic characteristics and data regarding the treatment performed were recorded. Patients' radiographs were evaluated at 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment by two qualified paediatric dentists blinded regarding the treatment performed. Radiographic success, reasons for failure and continuation of root development were evaluated. Differences were tested using the x² and Student's t-test, and possible correlations were determined by calculating the odds ratio. Results: Overall radiographic success rate at 24 months was 77%, ranging between 50% for direct pulp capping and 92% for full pulpotomy. Differences were not statistically significant. Continuation of root development was recorded in almost 1/3 of the teeth and completion in almost 1/5. No statistically significant association was recorded between the outcome and any tooth and treatment-related variables. Conclusion: VPT seems to be a reliable option in the long term for the treatment of deep carious lesions in young permanent molars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Pulpotomy is a vital pulp treatment procedure frequently used in primary molars to preserve pulp vitality and function until tooth exfoliation. There is currently no pulp medicament with all the features of the ideal pulpotomy material. The present study compared the radiographic success of sodium hypochlorite with ferric sulfate (FS) when used for pulpotomy in primary molars. Methods. A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate the success rates of primary molars pulpotomized using sodium hypochlorite or FS according to radiographic findings. Healthy 4‒10-year-old children who had pulpotomy procedures on primary molars between 2018 and 2021 at the pediatric dental clinic and had a control radiograph at least 12 months later were enrolled in the study. The chi-squared test was used to determine the differences in success between these two materials. Results. A total of 142 teeth, including 85 (59.9%) first primary molars and 57 (40.1%) second primary molars, in 98 healthy children were evaluated. The mean follow-up period of the teeth included in the study was 585.1±249.4 days. Radiographic success rates for NaOCl and FS groups were 73.8% and 71.0%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). Internal root resorption (IRR) was the most common cause of radiographic failure in both groups. Conclusion. Radiographic success rates of both materials were similar, and using these materials in primary molar pulpotomy procedures can be recommended in clinical practice.

Background. Pulpotomy is a vital pulp treatment procedure frequently used in primary molars to preserve pulp vitality and function until tooth exfoliation. There is currently no pulp medicament with all the features of the ideal pulpotomy material. The present study compared the radiographic success of sodium hypochlorite with ferric sulfate (FS) when used for pulpotomy in primary molars. Methods. A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate the success rates of primary molars pulpotomized using sodium hypochlorite or FS according to radiographic findings. Healthy 4-10-year-old children who had pulpotomy procedures on primary molars between 2018 and 2021 at the pediatric dental clinic and had a control radiograph at least 12 months later were enrolled in the study. The chi-squared test was used to determine the differences in success between these two materials. Results. A total of 142 teeth, including 85 (59.9%) first primary molars and 57 (40.1%) second primary molars, in 98 healthy children were evaluated. The mean follow-up period of the teeth included in the study was 585.1 ± 249.4 days. Radiographic success rates for NaOCl and FS groups were 73.8% and 71.0%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). Internal root resorption (IRR) was the most common cause of radiographic failure in both groups. Conclusion. Radiographic success rates of both materials were similar, and using these materials in primary molar pulpotomy procedures can be recommended in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scaffolds used in regenerative endodontic therapy (RET) provide structural support for cells so that they can adhere to the scaffolds and also are crucial for cellular proliferation and differentiation. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to compare effects of different intracanal scaffolds on success outcomes of RET. PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies evaluating and/or comparing clinical and/or radiographic success of RET using different scaffolds with a minimum of 12 months follow-up were included. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias (ROB) tool and appropriate tools from Joanna Briggs Institute were used for the assessment of ROB. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the primary outcome (clinical success) and other success outcomes (root maturation, and pulpal sensibility) using different scaffolds. Twenty-seven studies fulfilled the desired inclusion criteria of which 25 had a low ROB whereas 2 had a moderate ROB. Clinical success of RET using platelet-rich plasma (PRP), blood clot (BC), and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) scaffolds ranged between 91.66%–100%, 84.61%–100%, and 77%–100% respectively. The different scaffolds did not show any statistically significant difference in clinical success (PRF vs BC [ P = 1.000], PRP vs BC [ P = 1.000], and PRF vs PRP [ P =.999]), apical root closure (PRF vs BC [ P = 1.000], PRP vs BC [ P =.835], PRF vs PRP [ P =.956]), and pulp sensibility (PRF vs BC [ P =.980], PRP versus BC [ P =.520], and PRF vs PRP [ P =.990]). The intracanal scaffolds used during RET did not result in significant differences in regard to clinical success, root maturation, and pulpal sensibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This study suggests that tampon‐based coronal pulpotomy using a calcium silicate–based biomaterial can be a reliable approach for the treatment of vital primary molars with irreversible pulpitis.

This study suggests that tampon‐based coronal pulpotomy using a calcium silicate–based biomaterial can be a reliable approach for the treatment of vital primary molars with irreversible pulpitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants placed in maxillary sinus grafts was evaluated. Materials and Methods: The study consisted of 70 patients who had undergone 81 sinus-graft procedures (total 212 screw-type implants). Complete radiographic records were available for 160 implants, which were used to calculate MBL (follow-up 6 to 56.5 months). Habits (smoking, bruxism), surgical phase parameters (preoperative residual bone, grafting material, implant characteristics, and complications), and prosthetic parameters (crown-implant ratio, marginal fit, and opposite-arch restoration) were recorded for each patient and statistically analyzed regarding MBL. Results: Cumulative survival and overall radiographic success rates were 95.5% and 83.7% for 4.5 years, respectively. Smoking, small implant surface area, and a delayed implantation approach were related to enhanced MBL, with mean MBL values of 0.24 mm/y (P < .011), 0.21 mm/y (P < .031), and 0.31 mm/y (P = .052), respectively. In residual bone of ⩽ 4 mm, the relation to enhanced MBL was stronger (P < .018) for delayed implantation. Discussion: Survival and radiographic success rates compare well with other reports. However, most studies modify success criteria regarding MBL. Smoking may be a primary risk factor regarding implant success. Implants with greater surface area values could compensate for problematic bone characteristics (eg, in grafted maxillary sinuses). The effect of delayed implantation on MBL was surprising and may prompt simultaneous implantation whenever primary stability can be achieved. Conclusions: Smoking and implant surface area affected MBL in this patient population. Criteria for long-term implant success should be revised to a standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare marginal implant bone loss (MBL), survival, and radiographic evidence of success of dental implants among smokers and nonsmokers. Materials and Methods: Consecutive records of 161 patients (aged 23 to 89 years, mean 57 years) treated with a total of 646 implants between the years 1995 and 1998 were examined. Patients were divided into 3 groups: nonsmokers, moderate smokers, and heavy smokers. Tobacco exposure was calculated by cigarettes per day and by pack-years. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 7 years (mean 3.8 years). Postoperative panoramic radiographs obtained before implant exposure and annually thereafter were analyzed for MBL changes. The influence of smoking and other variables on MBL was analyzed at all implant sites. Results: Generally, smokers had more MBL than nonsmokers (0.153 ± 0.092 mm and 0.047 ± 0.048 mm, respectively; P < .001). When each jaw was examined separately, smoking had a greater effect on MBL in the maxilla than in the mandible (0.158 ± 0.171 mm versus 0.146 ± 0.158 mm, respectively; P < .001). Furthermore, in the maxilla, heavy smokers had the greatest amount of MBL (0.1897 ± 0.1825 mm), followed by moderate smokers (0.123 ± 0.156 mm) and nonsmokers (0.0460 ± 0.070 mm) (P < .001). In the mandible, there was no distinction between heavy and moderate smokers, and both had greater MBL than nonsmokers (P < .001). Only 3 of the 646 implants failed; the cumulative survival rate was 99.5%. Overall radiographic success rate was 93.2%. Nonsmokers had a higher radiographic success rate (97.1%) than smokers (87.8%) (P < .001). Conclusions: This study demonstrated a relationship between MBL and smoking habits. A higher incidence of MBL was found in the smoking group, and this was more pronounced in the maxilla. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Implant Dentistry is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)