After 18 - 24 months , in terms of treatment failure , the odds ratio for calcium hydroxide vs. formocresol was 1.94 [ 95 % credible interval ( CI ) : 1.11 , 3.25 ] ; 3.38 ( 95 % CI : 1.37 , 8.61 ) for lasers vs. formocresol ; 2.16 ( 95 % CI : 1.12 , 4.31 ) for calcium hydroxide vs. ferric sulfate ; 3.73 ( 95 % CI : 1.27 , 11.67 ) for lasers vs. ferric sulfate ; 0.47 ( 95 % CI : 0.26 , 0.83 ) for MTA vs. calcium hydroxide ; 3.76 ( 95 % CI : 1.39 , 10.08 ) for lasers vs. MTA CONCLUSIONS After 18 - 24 months , formocresol , ferric sulfate , and MTA showed significantly better clinical and radiographic outcomes than calcium hydroxide and laser therapies in primary molar pulpotomies .
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The network meta-analyses showed that MTA is the first choice for primary molar pulpotomies .
However , if treatment cost is an issue , especially when the treated primary molars are going to be replaced by permanent teeth , ferric sulfate may be the choice
OBJECTIVE Pulpotomy is a common procedure to treat asymptomatic reversible pulpitis in primary molars .
The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review and a network meta- analysis to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of different pulpotomy procedures in primary molars .
Comparison of enamel matrix derivative versus formocresol as pulpotomy agents in the primary dentition.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of two different pulpotomy agents : one novel agent , the biologically active odontogenic protein enamel matrix derivative ( EMD ) versus formocresol ( FC ) . A r and omized , single-blind , split-mouth study was used with a sample of 15 children aged 4 to 7 years ( mean age , 5 + /- 0.73 years ) . A total of 15 pairs of teeth , 1 pair per child , were selected for treatment . One tooth from each pair was r and omly assigned to either the EMD pulpotomy group or the FC pulpotomy group . All teeth were followed up clinical ly and radiographically at 2 , 4 , and 6 months . After 6 months , the clinical success rates for the FC and EMD groups were 67 % and 93 % , respectively . Although most likely clinical ly relevant , the clinical success rate difference after 6 months was not statistically significant . After 6 months , the radiographic success rates for the FC and EMD groups were 13 % and 60 % , respectively . There was a statistically significant difference at p < or = 0.05 . The clinical and radiographic assessment of EMD pulpotomized teeth in this study offers preliminary evidence that EMD is a promising material which may be as successful , or more so , than other pulpotomy agents
After 18 - 24 months , in terms of treatment failure , the odds ratio for calcium hydroxide vs. formocresol was 1.94 [ 95 % credible interval ( CI ) : 1.11 , 3.25 ] ; 3.38 ( 95 % CI : 1.37 , 8.61 ) for lasers vs. formocresol ; 2.16 ( 95 % CI : 1.12 , 4.31 ) for calcium hydroxide vs. ferric sulfate ; 3.73 ( 95 % CI : 1.27 , 11.67 ) for lasers vs. ferric sulfate ; 0.47 ( 95 % CI : 0.26 , 0.83 ) for MTA vs. calcium hydroxide ; 3.76 ( 95 % CI : 1.39 , 10.08 ) for lasers vs. MTA CONCLUSIONS After 18 - 24 months , formocresol , ferric sulfate , and MTA showed significantly better clinical and radiographic outcomes than calcium hydroxide and laser therapies in primary molar pulpotomies .
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The network meta-analyses showed that MTA is the first choice for primary molar pulpotomies .
However , if treatment cost is an issue , especially when the treated primary molars are going to be replaced by permanent teeth , ferric sulfate may be the choice
OBJECTIVE Pulpotomy is a common procedure to treat asymptomatic reversible pulpitis in primary molars .
The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review and a network meta- analysis to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of different pulpotomy procedures in primary molars .