4.5 Article

Clinical evaluation of direct pulp capping using a calcium silicate cement-treatment outcomes over an average period of 2.3 years

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages 3491-3499

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2767-5

Keywords

Biodentine; Calcium silicate cement; Direct pulp capping; Treatment outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives This study aims to assess the treatment outcomes of direct pulp capping with a calcium silicate cement (Biodentine) after caries excavation. Materials and methods A total of 245 teeth of 226 patients diagnosed to be clinical healthy or showing spontaneous pain were directly capped. The teeth were examined 0.19 to 7.4 (mean 2.3 +/- 2.04) years after treatment. The following data were recorded: age and sex of the patient, type of tooth and restoration (glass ionomer cement [GIC], amalgam, composite resin, ceramic, gold) and symptoms before or after treatment. The evaluation of the treatment was carried out by sensibility and percussion testing and by the patient's questioning. A positive sensibility test, a negative percussion test, the absence of swelling and discomfort were considered as treatment success. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, Chi-square and Fisher's exact test, respectively. Results After an average period of 2.3 years, 86.0% of the teeth remained vital; the survival rate after 7.4 years was 83.4%. The treatment outcome was significantly worse for cavities restored with GIC compared to all other restorative materials (p < 0.05). All other evaluated factors had no significant influence on the success rate (p > 0.05). Conclusion Exposed pulps of asymptomatic vital permanent teeth and teeth with spontaneous pain before treatment can be successfully capped directly using Biodentine. A subsequent restoration with GIC does not appear to be suitable as it significantly reduces the success of the treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available