International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of Success of Biodentine and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate with Formocresol as Pulpotomy Medicaments in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

Shilpa Ahuja, Kumari Surabhi, Kapil Gandhi, Rishabh Kapoor, Ritika Malhotra, Dipanshu Kumar

Keywords : Biodentine, Deciduous molars, Formocresol, Mineral trioxide aggregate, Pulpotomy

Citation Information : Ahuja S, Surabhi K, Gandhi K, Kapoor R, Malhotra R, Kumar D. Comparative Evaluation of Success of Biodentine and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate with Formocresol as Pulpotomy Medicaments in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (2):167-173.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1740

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: The study was designed to evaluate and compare the success of Biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) in comparison to formocresol as pulpotomy medicaments over 9 months of the follow-up period. Materials and methods: The sample of 60 deciduous molars of patients aged 4–7 years were incorporated in the study. The molars were randomly allocated to the experimental and control groups. Following coronal pulp removal and achieving hemostasis, the radicular pulp was covered with either Biodentine or MTA (experimental groups). In the control group, a cotton pellet soaked with diluted formocresol (one-fifth dilution of Buckley's formocresol) was placed over the radicular pulp for 1 minute. All pulpotomized molars were later restored with stainless steel crowns (SSCs). Results: The achieved clinical success over 9 months of the follow-up period was 100, 95, and 70% with Biodentine, MTA, and formocresol, respectively. The achieved radiographic success over 9 months of the follow-up period was 95, 60, and 25% with Biodentine, MTA, and formocresol, respectively. Conclusion: Favorable biological, physical, mechanical, and good manipulation properties of Biodentine show that this material can be used efficiently as a pulpotomy medicament in the clinical practice.

  1. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. AAPD Reference manual. 2012;33:213–218.
  2. Golpayegani MV, Ansari G, Tadayon N, et al. Low-level laser therapy for pulpotomy treatment of primary molars. J Dent 2009;6(4):168–174.
  3. Ranly DM. Pulpotomy therapy in primary teeth: new modalities for old rationales. Pediatr Dent 1994;16(6):403–409.
  4. Peng L, Ye L, Guo X, et al. Evaluation of formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2007;40(10):751–757. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01288.x.
  5. Torabinejad M, Watson TF, Pitt Ford TR. Sealing ability of a mineral trioxide aggregate when used as a root end filling material. J Endod 1993;19(12):591–595. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80271-2.
  6. Torabinejad M, Chivian N. Clinical applications of mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 1999;25(3):197–205. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80142-3.
  7. Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent 2001;23(1):15–18.
  8. Myers DR, Shoaf HK, Dirksen TR, et al. Distribution of 14C-formaldehyde after pulpotomy with formocresol. J Am Dent Assoc 1978;96(5):805–813. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1978.0187.
  9. Ibricevic H, al-Jame Q. Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow-up. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000;24(4):269–272. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.24.4.d7u6405nw1132705.
  10. Caicedo R, Abbott PV, Alongi DJ, et al. Clinical, radiographic and histological analysis of the effects of mineral trioxide aggregate used in direct pulp capping and pulpotomies of primary teeth. Aust Dent J 2006;51(4):297–305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00447.x.
  11. Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Long-term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(2):129–136.
  12. Salako N, Joseph B, Ritwik P, et al. Comparison of bioactive glass, mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol as pulpotomy agents in rat molar. Dent Traumatol 2003;19(6):314–320. DOI: 10.1046/j.1600-9657.2003.00204.x.
  13. Dammaschke T. A new bioactive cement for direct pulp capping. Int Dent 2012;2(2):64–69.
  14. Goupy L. Biodentin: a novel dentine substitute for use in paediatric conservative dentistry. Septodont Case Studies Collection 2012;1: 10–16.
  15. Rubanenko M, Moskovitz M, Petel R, et al. Effectiveness of biodentine versus formocresol as dressing agents in pulpotomized primary molars: preliminary results. 12th congress of EAPD, Sopot, Poland 2014.
  16. Cuadros C, Garcia J, Sandra S, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Biodentine and MTA in pulpotomies of primary molars. 12th Congress of EAPD, Sopot 2014.
  17. Rajasekharan S, Cauwels R, Vandenbulcke J, et al. Efficacy of 3 pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars - a randomized control trial with one year follow up. 12th Congress of EAPD, Sopot 2014.
  18. Lavaud A, Morchid L, Thebaud N, et al. Biodentine®, a new dentin substitute: case reports. 11th congress of the EAPD, Strasbourg 2012.
  19. Niranjani K, Prasad GM, Vasa AAK, et al. Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using mineral trioxide aggregate, laser and Biodentine- an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(4): ZC35–ZC37. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13153.5823.
  20. Juneja P, Kulkarni S. Clinical and radiographic comparison of Biodentine, mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulpotomy agents in primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014;19:312–316.
  21. About I, Laurent P, Tecles O. Bioactivity of Biodentine: a Ca3SiO5 based dentin substitute. J Dent Res 2010;89(2):165–169. DOI: 10.1177/0022034509358392.
  22. Zanini M, Sautier JM, Berdal A, et al. Biodentine induces immortalized murine pulp cell differentiation into odontoblast-like cells and stimulates biomineralization. J Endod 2012;38(9):1220–1226. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.04.018.
  23. Agamy HA, Bakry NS, Mounir MM, et al. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp-capping agents in pulpotomized primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(4):302–309.
  24. Stringhini Junior E, Vitcel ME, Oliveira LB. Evidence of pulpotomy in primary teeth comparing MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, and electrosurgery with formocresol. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015;16(4):303–312. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-015-0174-z.
  25. Jayam C, Mitra M, Mishra J, et al. Evaluation and comparison of white mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol medicaments in primary tooth pulpotomy: clinical and radiographic study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(1):13–18. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.127043.
  26. Bharti K, Kumar R, Khanna R. Clinical and radiographical evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate, Biodentine and propolis as pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40(4):276–285. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2015.40.4.276.
  27. Ansari G, Ranjpour M. Mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy of primary teeth: a 2-year follow-up. Int Endod J 2010;43(5):413–418. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01695.x.
  28. Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, et al. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomised primary molars: long-term follow up. Pediatr Dent 1997;19:327–330.
  29. Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, et al. Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques: a randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2005;84(12):1144–1148. DOI: 10.1177/154405910508401210.
  30. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long term follow-up. J Endod 2008;34(8):950–955. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.05.009.
  31. Neamatollahi H, Tajik A. Comparison of clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomy in primary molars using formocresol, ferric sulfate and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). J Dent 2006;31:6–14.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.