Comparative Evaluation of Chlorhexidine Polymer Scaffold, 3Mixtatin, and Formocresol for Vital Primary Pulp Therapy: A Randomized 6-month Clinical Study
Citation Information :
Comparative Evaluation of Chlorhexidine Polymer Scaffold, 3Mixtatin, and Formocresol for Vital Primary Pulp Therapy: A Randomized 6-month Clinical Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (3):478-482.
Introduction: The study was performed to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) polymer scaffold, 3Mixtatin, and formocresol for vital primary pulp therapy—a randomized clinical study.
Materials and methods: A total of 120 primary molars were included from children aged between 6 and 8 years in this randomized clinical study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and were randomly allocated into three groups (group I—CHX polymer scaffold, group II—3Mixtatin, and group III—formocresol. Pulpotomy was performed in a vital cariously exposed primary tooth with healthy periodontium where their retention is more beneficial than extraction. Subjects were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months for clinical and radiographic evaluations.
Results: At 6 months of follow-up, the overall success rate of pulpotomy in groups I, II, and III was 56.41, 71.05, and 60.52% in each group, respectively. Nonsignificant difference (p > 0.05) was seen during intergroup comparison.
Conclusion: However, among the three materials used in this study, 3mixtatin comparatively had better results.
Kratunova E, Silva D. Pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth: an overview. Gen Dent 2018;66(6):30–38.
Taha NA, Ahmad MB, Ghanim A. Assessment of mineral trioxide aggregrate pulpotomy in mature permanent teeth with carious exposures. Int Endod J 2017;50(2):117–125.
Fuks AB. Current concepts in vital primary pulp therapy. Eur J paediatr Dent 2002;3(3):115–20.
Jamali Z, Alavi V, Najafpour E, et al. Randomized controlled trial of pulpotomy in primary molars using MTA and formocresol compared to 3mixtatin: a novel biomaterial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;42(5):361–366. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-42.5.7
Nasseh HN, El Noueiri B, Pilipili C, et al. Evaluation of biodentine pulpotomies in deciduous molars with physiological root resorption (stage 3). Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(5):393–394. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1546
Luengo-Fereira J, Ayala-Jiménez S, Carlos-Medrano LE, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of formocresol and chloramphenicol, tetracycline and zinc oxide – eugenol antibiotic paste in primary teeth pulpotomies. J Clin Pediatr Dent.2019;43(1):16–21. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.4
Ghoniem N, Vaidyanathan V, Zealand CM, et al. Mineral trioxide aggregrate and diluted formocresol pulpotomy: prospective and retrospective study outcomes. J Mich Dent Assoc 2018;100(4):40–65.
Kalyan KSDR, Vinay C, Arunbhupathi, et al. Preclinical evaluation and clinical trial of chlorhexidine polymer scaffold for vital pulp therapy. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;43(2):109–115. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-43.2.7
Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV. The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J 2009;42(4):288–302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01540.x
Karanxha L, Park SJ, Son WJ, et al. Combined effects of simvastatin and enamel matrix derivative on odontoblastic differentiation of human dental pulp cells. J Endod 2013;39(1):76–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.10.013
Jia W, Zhao Y, Yang J, et al. Simvastatin promotes dental pulp stem cell-induced coronal pulp regeneration in pulpotomized teeth. J Endod 2016;42(7):1049–1054. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.03.007
Taha NA, Abdelkhader SZ. Outcome of full pulpotomy using Biodentine in adult patients with symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis. Int Endod J 2018;51(8):819–828. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12903
Aminabadi NASL, Satrab S, Najafpour E, et al. A randomized trial of direct pulp capping in primary molars using MTA compared to 3Mixtatin: a novel pulp capping biomaterial. Int J Ped Dent 2016;26:281–290. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.2.95
Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian J Psychol Med 2013;35(2):121–126. DOI: 10.4103/0253-7176.116232
Aminabadi NA, Huang B, Samiei M, et al. A randomized trial using 3Mixtatin compared to MTA in primary molars with inflammatory root resorption: a novel endodontic biomaterial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40(2):95–102. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.2.95
Gupta S, Del Fabbro M, Chang J. The impact of simvastatin intervention on the healing of bone, soft tissue, and TMJ cartilage in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent 2019;5(1):17. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-019-0168-4
Godhi B, Sood PB, Sharma A. Effects of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol on vital pulp after pulpotomy of primary molars: An in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent 2011;2(4):296–301. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237x.91792
Shaikh M, Jha M, Undre M, et al. Outcome of pulpotomy in primary teeth using diode laser. J Contemp Dent 2019;9(2):72. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1258
de Lourdes Rodrigues Accorinte M, Reis A, Dourado Loguercio A, et al. Influence of rubber dam isolation on human pulp responses after capping with calcium hydroxide and an adhesive system. Quintessence Int 2006;37(3):205–212.
Okamoto Y, Sonoyama W, Ono M, et al. Simvastatin induces the odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells in vitro and in vivo. J Endod 2009;35(3):367–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.024
Keles S, Kocaturk O. Immediate postoperative pain and recovery time after pulpotomy performed under general anaesthesia in young children. Pain Res Manag 2017;2017:9781501. DOI: 10.1155/2017/9781501
Shafie L, Barghi H, Parirokh M, et al. Postoperative pain following pulpotomy of primary molars with two biomaterials: a randomized split mouth clinical trial. Iran Endod J 2017;12(1):10–14. DOI: 10.22037/iej.2017.02
Eghbal MJ, Haeri A, Shahravan A, et al. Postendodontic pain after pulpotomy or root canal treatment in mature teeth with carious pulp exposure: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Pain Res Manag 2020;2020:5853412. DOI: 10.1155/2020/5853412
Kulkarni GK, Dogan MS, Akleyin E, et al. Analysıs of failures of pulpotomy treated prımary teeth: a case series and review. J Dent Oral Dis Ther 2021;1–6.
Sonmez D, Duruturk L. Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns. Br Dent J 2010;208(9):408–409. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.446
Asgary S, Eghbal MJ. Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis using biomaterials: a multi-center randomized controlled trial. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71(1):130–136. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2011.654251
Hicks MJ, Barr ES, Flaitz CM. Formocresol pulpotomies in primary molars: a radiographic study in a pediatric dentistry practice. J Pedod 1986;10(4):331–339.
El Meligy OAES, Alamoudi NM, Allazzam SM, et al. Biodentine TM versus formocresol pulpotomy technique in primary molars: a 12–month randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC oral health 2019;19(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0702-4
Alves FR, Marceliano-Alves MF, de Souza AC, et al. Mucosal fenestration after 2% chlorhexidine extrusion used in substitution of sodium hypochlorite: a case report. Euro J Dent 2020;14(3):511–516.
Jha S, Goel N, Dash BP, et al. An update on newer pulpotomy agents in primary teeth: a literature review. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13(Suppl 1):S57–S61. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_799_20
