Clinical and radiographic success of mineral trioxide aggregate compared with formocresol as a pulpotomy treatment in primary molars

Marghalani, Abdullah A.; Omar, Samah I.; Chen, Jung‐Wei

doi:10.14219/jada.2014.36

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…, Marghalani et al . ). In contrast, several systematic reviews and meta‐analyses reported significantly greater clinical and radiographic success rates for MTA compared to formocresol as pulpotomy agents in primary molars (Peng et al .…”

Section: Vital Pulp Therapiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part I: vital pulp therapy

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a bioactive endodontic cement (BEC) mainly comprised of calcium and silicate elements. The cement was introduced by Torabinejad in the 1990s and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to be used in the United States in 1997. A number of new BECs have also been introduced to the market, including BioAggregate, Biodentine, BioRoot RCS, calcium-enriched mixture cement, Endo-CPM, Endocem, EndoSequence, EndoBinder, EndoSeal MTA, iRoot, MicroMega MTA, MTA Bio, MTA Fillapex, MTA Plus, NeoMTA Plus, OrthoMTA, Quick-Set, RetroMTA, Tech Biosealer and TheraCal LC. It has been claimed that these materials have properties similar to those of MTA without its drawbacks. In this article, the chemical composition and the application of MTA and other BECs for vital pulp therapy (VPT), including indirect pulp cap, direct pulp cap, partial pulpotomy, pulpotomy and partial pulpectomy, have been reviewed and compared. Based on selected keywords, all papers regarding chemical composition and VPT applications of BECs had been reviewed. Most of the materials had calcium and silicate in their composition. Instead of referring to the cements based on their chemical compositions, we suggest the term 'bioactive endodontic cements (BECs)', which seems more appropriate for these materials because, in spite of differences in their chemical compositions, bioactivity is a common property for all of them. Numerous articles were found regarding use of BECs as VPT agents for indirect and direct pulp capping, partial pulpotomy and cervical pulpotomy. Most of these investigations used MTA for VPT. In most studies, newly introduced materials have been compared to MTA. Some of the BECs have shown promising results; however, the number of their studies compared to investigations on MTA is limited. Most studies had several methodological shortcomings. Future investigations with rigorous methods and materials are needed.

show abstract

Section: Vital Pulp Therapiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part I: vital pulp therapy

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The probability that the results of a systematic review are correct depends on whether reviewers identified, retrieved, selected, critically appraised, and summarized all the relevant studies. 15 Table 2 [16][17][18][19][20][21] presents examples of the aspects to consider when assessing the risk of bias of a systematic review.…”

Section: Critically Appraising Systematic Reviews To Inform Clinical mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 Evaluating the results of a systematic review requires clinicians to consider whether effects are similar across studies, as well as to assess the magnitude and the precision of the effects. Table 3 20,21 presents examples of assessments of the results of systematic reviews in dentistry.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: VI

Carrasco-Labra¹,

Brignardello‐Petersen²,

Glick³

et al. 2015

The Journal of the American Dental Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These results are in agreement with most of the published reviews and studies of these materials for the same follow-up periods. [3][4][5][6][7] The results of a more recent Cochrane review were published in 2014; the review included 47 RCTs and 25 comparisons among different medicaments/techniques, of which 14 compared MTA and formocresol. 8 The authors only judged 1 trial to be at low risk of bias and reported that the overall quality of the evidence was low and there is no evidence to identify one superior pulpotomy medicament.…”

Section: Commentary and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

MTA, Formocresol, and Ferric Sulfate Have Significantly Better Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Than Calcium Hydroxide and Laser Therapies in Primary Molar Pulpotomies After 18–24 Months

Clinical and radiographic success of mineral trioxide aggregate compared with formocresol as a pulpotomy treatment in primary molars

Cited by 23 publications

References 31 publications

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part I: vital pulp therapy

Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: an updated overview – part I: vital pulp therapy

A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: VI

MTA, Formocresol, and Ferric Sulfate Have Significantly Better Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Than Calcium Hydroxide and Laser Therapies in Primary Molar Pulpotomies After 18–24 Months

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About