 |
| Title |
Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) Successful for Pulpotomy Treatment |
| Clinical Question |
In primary molars, is mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) a successful pulpotomy medicament compared with the current gold standard, formocresol (FC)? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Mineral trioxide aggregate is a successful medicament in pulpotomy treatment of primary molars and may replace formocresol as the preferred pulpotomy material. |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 15926290 | Holan/2005 | 33 children | Randomized Controlled Trial | | Key results | The randomized controlled trial by Holan, Eidelmann and Fuks included 33 teeth in the MTA group and 29 teeth in the formocresol group within 33 children. The success rate for pulpotomy was 97% (MTA), and 83% (formocresol). | | #2) 18534173 | Ng/2008 | children | meta-analysis | | Key results | The meta-analysis by Ng and Messer found MTA significantly more successful than FC (COR=3.11; 95%CL=1.09-8.85). Clinical and radiographic data supported this finding. | |
| Evidence Search |
"mineral trioxide aggregate" [Supplementary Concept] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
In the randomized controlled study by Holan et al, radiographic and clinical follow-up ranged between 4 and 74 months (mean was 33 months). Failures occurred after mean period of 16 months (range = 4-30). MTA showed a higher but not statistically significant better performance than formocresol.
Relevant papers were identified from electronic data bases for the assessment by Ng. The meta-analysis included data from 18 randomized trials and 10 clinical trials (total = 1260 molars) |
| Applicability |
Mineral trioxide Aggregate (MTA) may become the preferred medicament for successful pulpotomy treatment in primary molars. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(Endodontics) (General Dentistry) (Pediatric Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Pulpotomy
|
| ID# |
2296 |
| Date of submission: |
08/01/2012 Revised: 10/11/2012 |
| E-mail |
alsalman@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Zeena Alsalman |
| Co-author(s) |
Judy Philip |
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
PhilipJA@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Barry K. Norling, MS, PhD |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
norling@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
| None available | |
|
|
