MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
Objective This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials in order to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of primary teeth pulpotomy performed with biodentine, when compared to MTA. Methods Search strategies were conducted in nine databases on Aug...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral investigations 2019-04, Vol.23 (4), p.1967-1976 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1976 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 1967 |
| container_title | Clinical oral investigations |
| container_volume | 23 |
| creator | Stringhini Junior, Emyr dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo Oliveira, Luciana Butini Mercadé, Montse |
| description | Objective
This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials in order to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of primary teeth pulpotomy performed with biodentine, when compared to MTA.
Methods
Search strategies were conducted in nine databases on August 5th, 2017, update on February 14th, 2018. Clinical articles were selected, which were in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the research objective. They were analyzed by meta-analysis at three time points (6, 12, and 18 months).
Results
Out of the 233 publications initially identified, only 9 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The 6-month overall clinical (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.96–1.02,
p
= 0.92) and radiographic success rates (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.92–1.00,
p
= 0.28) showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically. The 12 and 18-month overall clinical success rates, respectively (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.97–1.04,
p
= 0.77; RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.92–1.05,
p
= 0.74) and radiographic success rates, respectively (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.92–1.02,
p
= 0.11; RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.91–1.10,
p
= 0.56) also showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically.
Conclusion
There is no superiority of one material over the other, MTA versus biodentine.
Clinical relevance
This systematic review comparing the performance of biodentine in relation to the MTA when used in the pulpotomy technique in primary teeth. Although MTA is considered the gold standard material for pulpotomy procedures, it has some drawbacks (poor handling, staining potential, long setting time); thus, it is important to evaluate the clinical performance of other calcium silicate-based cements like biodentine that overcome this drawbacks. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00784-018-2616-6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2111146637</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2110120555</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-5e2450aaa4d4e5829b1801b745ef4d7a5cce1aca12510d3f29788976e0a4f5e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU2LFDEQhoMo7ucP8CIBL16iqXz2eFsWdYUVL3MPmXS1m6W7MyZpl_n3m50ZFYTNIRWo531D1UvIG-AfgHP7sbSrU4xDx4QBw8wLcgpKGiathZf7t2Bm1cEJOSvlnnNQxsrX5ERyITsF6pTcfV9fUT_3dBNTj3ONM9IhZbrNcfJ5RytivaPbZdymmqbdJ-pp2ZWKk68x0Iy_Iz7s9RNWz_zsx12JhaaBhjHOMfiR1hz9WC7Iq6EVvDzWc7L-8nl9fcNuf3z9dn11y4K0ojKNQmnuvVe9Qt2J1QY6DhurNA6qt16HgOCDB6GB93IQK9t1K2uQezVolOfk_cF2m9OvBUt1UywBx9HPmJbiBLSjjJG2oe_-Q-_TktsEe4qD4FrrRsGBCjmVknFwx9U44O4pBXdIwbUU3FMKzjTN26Pzspmw_6v4s_YGiANQWmv-ifnf18-7PgLAmZIs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2110120555</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Stringhini Junior, Emyr ; dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo ; Oliveira, Luciana Butini ; Mercadé, Montse</creator><creatorcontrib>Stringhini Junior, Emyr ; dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo ; Oliveira, Luciana Butini ; Mercadé, Montse</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials in order to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of primary teeth pulpotomy performed with biodentine, when compared to MTA.
Methods
Search strategies were conducted in nine databases on August 5th, 2017, update on February 14th, 2018. Clinical articles were selected, which were in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the research objective. They were analyzed by meta-analysis at three time points (6, 12, and 18 months).
Results
Out of the 233 publications initially identified, only 9 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The 6-month overall clinical (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.96–1.02,
p
= 0.92) and radiographic success rates (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.92–1.00,
p
= 0.28) showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically. The 12 and 18-month overall clinical success rates, respectively (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.97–1.04,
p
= 0.77; RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.92–1.05,
p
= 0.74) and radiographic success rates, respectively (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.92–1.02,
p
= 0.11; RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.91–1.10,
p
= 0.56) also showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically.
Conclusion
There is no superiority of one material over the other, MTA versus biodentine.
Clinical relevance
This systematic review comparing the performance of biodentine in relation to the MTA when used in the pulpotomy technique in primary teeth. Although MTA is considered the gold standard material for pulpotomy procedures, it has some drawbacks (poor handling, staining potential, long setting time); thus, it is important to evaluate the clinical performance of other calcium silicate-based cements like biodentine that overcome this drawbacks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-6981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1436-3771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2616-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30238414</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Calcium ; Calcium Compounds - pharmacology ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Clinical trials ; Dentistry ; Drug Combinations ; Endodontics ; Humans ; Medicine ; Meta-analysis ; Original Article ; Pemetrexed - pharmacology ; Pulpotomy ; Reviews ; Silicates - pharmacology ; Success ; Systematic review ; Teeth ; Tooth, Deciduous</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral investigations, 2019-04, Vol.23 (4), p.1967-1976</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018</rights><rights>Clinical Oral Investigations is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-5e2450aaa4d4e5829b1801b745ef4d7a5cce1aca12510d3f29788976e0a4f5e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-5e2450aaa4d4e5829b1801b745ef4d7a5cce1aca12510d3f29788976e0a4f5e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8755-6540</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00784-018-2616-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00784-018-2616-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30238414$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stringhini Junior, Emyr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliveira, Luciana Butini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mercadé, Montse</creatorcontrib><title>MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials</title><title>Clinical oral investigations</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Invest</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><description>Objective
This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials in order to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of primary teeth pulpotomy performed with biodentine, when compared to MTA.
Methods
Search strategies were conducted in nine databases on August 5th, 2017, update on February 14th, 2018. Clinical articles were selected, which were in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the research objective. They were analyzed by meta-analysis at three time points (6, 12, and 18 months).
Results
Out of the 233 publications initially identified, only 9 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The 6-month overall clinical (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.96–1.02,
p
= 0.92) and radiographic success rates (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.92–1.00,
p
= 0.28) showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically. The 12 and 18-month overall clinical success rates, respectively (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.97–1.04,
p
= 0.77; RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.92–1.05,
p
= 0.74) and radiographic success rates, respectively (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.92–1.02,
p
= 0.11; RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.91–1.10,
p
= 0.56) also showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically.
Conclusion
There is no superiority of one material over the other, MTA versus biodentine.
Clinical relevance
This systematic review comparing the performance of biodentine in relation to the MTA when used in the pulpotomy technique in primary teeth. Although MTA is considered the gold standard material for pulpotomy procedures, it has some drawbacks (poor handling, staining potential, long setting time); thus, it is important to evaluate the clinical performance of other calcium silicate-based cements like biodentine that overcome this drawbacks.</description><subject>Calcium</subject><subject>Calcium Compounds - pharmacology</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Drug Combinations</subject><subject>Endodontics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pemetrexed - pharmacology</subject><subject>Pulpotomy</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Silicates - pharmacology</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Tooth, Deciduous</subject><issn>1432-6981</issn><issn>1436-3771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU2LFDEQhoMo7ucP8CIBL16iqXz2eFsWdYUVL3MPmXS1m6W7MyZpl_n3m50ZFYTNIRWo531D1UvIG-AfgHP7sbSrU4xDx4QBw8wLcgpKGiathZf7t2Bm1cEJOSvlnnNQxsrX5ERyITsF6pTcfV9fUT_3dBNTj3ONM9IhZbrNcfJ5RytivaPbZdymmqbdJ-pp2ZWKk68x0Iy_Iz7s9RNWz_zsx12JhaaBhjHOMfiR1hz9WC7Iq6EVvDzWc7L-8nl9fcNuf3z9dn11y4K0ojKNQmnuvVe9Qt2J1QY6DhurNA6qt16HgOCDB6GB93IQK9t1K2uQezVolOfk_cF2m9OvBUt1UywBx9HPmJbiBLSjjJG2oe_-Q-_TktsEe4qD4FrrRsGBCjmVknFwx9U44O4pBXdIwbUU3FMKzjTN26Pzspmw_6v4s_YGiANQWmv-ifnf18-7PgLAmZIs</recordid><startdate>20190401</startdate><enddate>20190401</enddate><creator>Stringhini Junior, Emyr</creator><creator>dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo</creator><creator>Oliveira, Luciana Butini</creator><creator>Mercadé, Montse</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8755-6540</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190401</creationdate><title>MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials</title><author>Stringhini Junior, Emyr ; dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo ; Oliveira, Luciana Butini ; Mercadé, Montse</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-5e2450aaa4d4e5829b1801b745ef4d7a5cce1aca12510d3f29788976e0a4f5e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Calcium</topic><topic>Calcium Compounds - pharmacology</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Drug Combinations</topic><topic>Endodontics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pemetrexed - pharmacology</topic><topic>Pulpotomy</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Silicates - pharmacology</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Tooth, Deciduous</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stringhini Junior, Emyr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliveira, Luciana Butini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mercadé, Montse</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stringhini Junior, Emyr</au><au>dos Santos, Manuela Gouvêa Campêlo</au><au>Oliveira, Luciana Butini</au><au>Mercadé, Montse</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle><stitle>Clin Oral Invest</stitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><date>2019-04-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1967</spage><epage>1976</epage><pages>1967-1976</pages><issn>1432-6981</issn><eissn>1436-3771</eissn><abstract>Objective
This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials in order to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of primary teeth pulpotomy performed with biodentine, when compared to MTA.
Methods
Search strategies were conducted in nine databases on August 5th, 2017, update on February 14th, 2018. Clinical articles were selected, which were in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the research objective. They were analyzed by meta-analysis at three time points (6, 12, and 18 months).
Results
Out of the 233 publications initially identified, only 9 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The 6-month overall clinical (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.96–1.02,
p
= 0.92) and radiographic success rates (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.92–1.00,
p
= 0.28) showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically. The 12 and 18-month overall clinical success rates, respectively (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.97–1.04,
p
= 0.77; RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.92–1.05,
p
= 0.74) and radiographic success rates, respectively (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.92–1.02,
p
= 0.11; RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.91–1.10,
p
= 0.56) also showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically.
Conclusion
There is no superiority of one material over the other, MTA versus biodentine.
Clinical relevance
This systematic review comparing the performance of biodentine in relation to the MTA when used in the pulpotomy technique in primary teeth. Although MTA is considered the gold standard material for pulpotomy procedures, it has some drawbacks (poor handling, staining potential, long setting time); thus, it is important to evaluate the clinical performance of other calcium silicate-based cements like biodentine that overcome this drawbacks.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>30238414</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00784-018-2616-6</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8755-6540</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1432-6981 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral investigations, 2019-04, Vol.23 (4), p.1967-1976 |
| issn | 1432-6981 1436-3771 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2111146637 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Calcium Calcium Compounds - pharmacology Child Child, Preschool Clinical trials Dentistry Drug Combinations Endodontics Humans Medicine Meta-analysis Original Article Pemetrexed - pharmacology Pulpotomy Reviews Silicates - pharmacology Success Systematic review Teeth Tooth, Deciduous |
| title | MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T00%3A10%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MTA%20and%20biodentine%20for%20primary%20teeth%20pulpotomy:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%20of%20clinical%20trials&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20investigations&rft.au=Stringhini%20Junior,%20Emyr&rft.date=2019-04-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1967&rft.epage=1976&rft.pages=1967-1976&rft.issn=1432-6981&rft.eissn=1436-3771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00784-018-2616-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2110120555%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2110120555&rft_id=info:pmid/30238414&rfr_iscdi=true |