Clinical and radiographic evaluation of triple antibiotic paste pulp therapy compared to Vitapex pulpectomy in non-vital primary molars

Objectives: This study compared and evaluated the clinical and radiographic efficacy of non-instrumentation triple antibiotic paste pulp therapy and Vitapex pulpectomy in non-vital primary molars. Material and Methods: Healthy, 5-9 years old children with at least one non-vital primary molar were included in the study. Molars were divided into two groups based on the subject's cooperation level. In the first group, molars received triple antibiotic paste, and a second group received Vitapex pulpectomy followed by a stainless-steel crown. Triple antibiotic paste was freshly prepared and proportioned in equal parts by volume (metronidazole, minocycline, and ciprofloxacin = 1:1:1) before the scheduled treatment. A clinical and radiographic examination was performed by two trained and calibrated pediatric dentists at the pre-operative baseline and the 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. Results: A total of 28 molars received triple antibiotic paste pulp therapy and 20 received Vitapex pulpectomy. At the 6-month follow-up, the success rate among the molars in the triple antibiotic paste group was clinically (92.85%) and radiographically (85.71%) higher compared to the Vitapex group (91.67%, 62.50% respectively) with p = 0.89 and 0.55 respectively. At the 12-month follow-up, the molars in the triple antibiotic paste group showed lower clinical (95.45%) but higher radiographic success rate (72.73%) compared to the Vitapex group (100% and 62.50%) with (p = 0.85 and 0.47) respectively. None of the differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: Both triple antibiotic paste and Vitapex can be clinically and radiographically effective in treating non-vital primary molars.

Automated summary

The study compared the efficacy of non-instrumentation triple antibiotic paste pulp therapy and Vitapex pulpectomy in non-vital primary molars and found that both treatments can be clinically and radiographically effective. The success rates of the two treatments showed some differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes.