Abstract：
Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) is considered the gold standard material for pulpotomy procedures. However, some drawbacks such as poor handling and long setting time are challenging when it is used as pulpotomy dressing in primary molars in children. Hence, the purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical performance of a premixed, fast setting bioceramic root repair material (BC RRM-F) with MTA in vital pulpotomy procedures of primary molars, with or without the added seal of a stainless steel crown (SSC).
In this double blinded, four-arm, parallel group randomized contolled trial (RCT), 64 primary molars were randomly allocated to one of the four treatment groups: MTA (PDTM MTA WHITE)+SSC, MTA+GI (bulk fill glass ionomer with glass hybrid technology GC EQUIA Forte® HT), BC RRM-F+GI and BC RRM-F+SCC. All molars were evaluated clinically and radiographically according to the modified Zurn and Seale criteria at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow up. Multivariate cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival analysis.
There was no statistically significant difference between the success of both pulp capping materials used. Overall survival analysis showed that using GI instead of SCC as a final restorative material was significantly associated with increased risk of failure.
TotalFill® BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty can be used as an alternative to MTA in primary molar pulpotomy. Regardless of the pulp capping material, one year survival of pulpotomized primary molars restored with SSC is higher compared to those restored with GC EQUIA Forte® HT.
Clinicians\' preference and cost effectiveness may justify the use of either material in primary molar pulpotomy. Parents insisting on tooth-colored restorations for their children\'s pulpotomized teeth cannot be told that the expectation for success is the same as those restored with SSC, even if calcium silicate-based pulp capping materials are used.
In this double blinded, four-arm, parallel group randomized contolled trial (RCT), 64 primary molars were randomly allocated to one of the four treatment groups: MTA (PDTM MTA WHITE)+SSC, MTA+GI (bulk fill glass ionomer with glass hybrid technology GC EQUIA Forte® HT), BC RRM-F+GI and BC RRM-F+SCC. All molars were evaluated clinically and radiographically according to the modified Zurn and Seale criteria at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months follow up. Multivariate cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival analysis.
There was no statistically significant difference between the success of both pulp capping materials used. Overall survival analysis showed that using GI instead of SCC as a final restorative material was significantly associated with increased risk of failure.
TotalFill® BC RRM™ Fast Set Putty can be used as an alternative to MTA in primary molar pulpotomy. Regardless of the pulp capping material, one year survival of pulpotomized primary molars restored with SSC is higher compared to those restored with GC EQUIA Forte® HT.
Clinicians\' preference and cost effectiveness may justify the use of either material in primary molar pulpotomy. Parents insisting on tooth-colored restorations for their children\'s pulpotomized teeth cannot be told that the expectation for success is the same as those restored with SSC, even if calcium silicate-based pulp capping materials are used.
摘要：
目的：三氧化二矿骨料（MTA）被认为是牙髓切除术的金标准材料。然而,当它被用作儿童原发性磨牙的牙髓切开术敷料时，一些缺点是具有挑战性的，例如处理不良和固定时间长。因此，这项研究的目的是比较预混，快速设置生物陶瓷根修复材料（BCRRM-F）与MTA在原发性磨牙的重要牙髓切除术中，有或没有一个不锈钢冠（SSC）添加密封。
方法：在这种双盲中，四臂,平行组随机对照试验(RCT)，64颗原发性磨牙随机分配到四个治疗组之一：MTA（PDTMMTAWHITE）+SSC，MTA+GI(采用玻璃混合技术的散装填充玻璃离聚物GCEQUIAForte®HT),BCRRM-F+GI和BCRRM-F+SCC。在随访1、3、6和12个月时，根据改良的Zurn和Seale标准对所有磨牙进行了临床和影像学评估。采用多因素cox回归模型和Kaplan-Meier曲线进行生存分析。
结果：两种使用的纸浆封盖材料的成功率之间没有统计学上的显着差异。总体生存分析表明，使用GI代替SCC作为最终修复材料与失败风险增加显着相关。
结论：TotalFill®BCRRM™FastSetPutty可作为原发性磨牙牙髓切除术中MTA的替代方法。无论纸浆封盖材料如何，与使用GCEQUIAForte®HT修复的原磨牙相比，使用SSC修复的牙髓切除的原磨牙的一年生存率更高。
结论：临床医生的偏好和成本效益可能证明在原发性磨牙牙髓切除术中使用这两种材料是合理的。坚持为孩子的牙髓切除牙齿进行牙齿颜色修复的父母不能被告知对成功的期望与使用SSC修复的期望相同，即使使用硅酸钙基纸浆封盖材料。
方法：在这种双盲中，四臂,平行组随机对照试验(RCT)，64颗原发性磨牙随机分配到四个治疗组之一：MTA（PDTMMTAWHITE）+SSC，MTA+GI(采用玻璃混合技术的散装填充玻璃离聚物GCEQUIAForte®HT),BCRRM-F+GI和BCRRM-F+SCC。在随访1、3、6和12个月时，根据改良的Zurn和Seale标准对所有磨牙进行了临床和影像学评估。采用多因素cox回归模型和Kaplan-Meier曲线进行生存分析。
结果：两种使用的纸浆封盖材料的成功率之间没有统计学上的显着差异。总体生存分析表明，使用GI代替SCC作为最终修复材料与失败风险增加显着相关。
结论：TotalFill®BCRRM™FastSetPutty可作为原发性磨牙牙髓切除术中MTA的替代方法。无论纸浆封盖材料如何，与使用GCEQUIAForte®HT修复的原磨牙相比，使用SSC修复的牙髓切除的原磨牙的一年生存率更高。
结论：临床医生的偏好和成本效益可能证明在原发性磨牙牙髓切除术中使用这两种材料是合理的。坚持为孩子的牙髓切除牙齿进行牙齿颜色修复的父母不能被告知对成功的期望与使用SSC修复的期望相同，即使使用硅酸钙基纸浆封盖材料。
