Jang Youngjune, Song Minju, Yoo Il-Sang, Song Yunjung, Roh Byoung-Duck, Kim Euiseong
Microscope Center, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Division of Constitutive & Regenerative Sciences Section of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
J Endod. 2015 Aug;41(8):1201-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.03.015. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of direct pulp capping (DPC) with ProRoot MTA (Dentsply, Tulsa, OK) and Endocem (Maruchi, Wonju, Korea) as pulp capping materials. To this end, the 1-year cumulative successes of both materials were evaluated and compared with those of the 3-month outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Patients were recruited from the Department of Conservative Dentistry of the Yonsei University Dental Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, from January to May 2013. Of the 48 teeth that met the inclusion criteria, 46 teeth were randomly allocated to either ProRoot MTA or Endocem groups (n = 23). Direct pulp capping was performed, and clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted over 1 year after the treatment. Survival analyses were conducted to compare the cumulative successes between ProRoot MTA and Endocem and to evaluate other clinical variables.
Forty-one teeth were recalled 1 year after the treatments (recall rate = 89.13%). There were no significant differences between the cumulative successes of ProRoot MTA and Endocem in either log-rank or Cox proportional hazard regression analyses (P > .05). Among the other clinical variables, cavity type (class I, II, III vs class V) was determined to be significant in both the log-rank test (P = .001) and Cox regression analysis (P = .006).
Both ProRoot MTA and Endocem exhibited similar cumulative successes as direct pulp capping materials up to 1 year. The teeth restored with class V cavities exhibited significantly lower cumulative success rates after direct pulp capping compared with the teeth restored with other types of cavities.
本研究的目的是评估使用ProRoot MTA（登士柏，塔尔萨，俄克拉何马州）和Endocem（马鲁奇，原州，韩国）作为牙髓盖髓材料进行直接盖髓术（DPC）的长期临床效果。为此，在一项前瞻性随机对照试验中，评估了这两种材料的1年累积成功率，并与3个月时的结果进行比较。
2013年1月至5月，从韩国首尔延世大学牙科学院保守牙科招募患者。在符合纳入标准的48颗牙齿中，46颗牙齿被随机分配到ProRoot MTA组或Endocem组（n = 23）。进行直接盖髓术，并在治疗后1年内进行临床和影像学检查。进行生存分析以比较ProRoot MTA和Endocem之间的累积成功率，并评估其他临床变量。
治疗1年后召回41颗牙齿（召回率= 89.13%）。在对数秩检验或Cox比例风险回归分析中，ProRoot MTA和Endocem的累积成功率之间均无显著差异（P>0.05）。在其他临床变量中，窝洞类型（I类、II类、III类与V类）在对数秩检验（P = 0.001）和Cox回归分析（P = 0.006）中均被确定为显著。
ProRoot MTA和Endocem作为直接盖髓材料在1年内均表现出相似的累积成功率。与用其他类型窝洞修复的牙齿相比，用V类窝洞修复的牙齿在直接盖髓术后的累积成功率显著较低。
