Suresh Sarang, Kalhoro Feroze A, Rani Priya, Memon Mahwish
Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan.
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025 Feb;11(1):e70090. doi: 10.1002/cre2.70090.
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic success of MTA versus EBRRM in pulpotomy of permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis without apical periodontitis.
Clinical and radiographic assessments were conducted at baseline, 6 days, 6 weeks, and 6 months. After administration of anesthesia and coronal pulp removal, pulp was capped with MTA or Endo Sequence Bioceramic Root Repair, followed by restoration with a glass ionomer and resin composite.
The overall success rate for pulpotomy was 71.9%, with MTA and the bioceramic showing success rates of 32.8% and 39.1%, respectively. There was no significant relationship with the type of cavity and failure of pulpotomy.
MTA and EBBRRM are both practical choices for pulpotomy and there is no notable difference between them in the success rate and pain level. EBBRRM may be more effective in Class 1 cavities than in Class 2 cavities.
本研究旨在比较MTA与Endo Sequence生物陶瓷根管修复材料（EBRRM）用于恒牙不可复性牙髓炎且无根尖周炎的牙髓切断术的临床及影像学成功率。
在基线、6天、6周和6个月时进行临床及影像学评估。在给予麻醉并去除冠髓后，用MTA或Endo Sequence生物陶瓷根管修复材料覆盖牙髓，随后用玻璃离子体和树脂复合体进行修复。
牙髓切断术的总体成功率为71.9%，MTA和生物陶瓷材料的成功率分别为32.8%和39.1%。窝洞类型与牙髓切断术失败之间无显著关系。
MTA和EBRRM都是牙髓切断术的实用选择，它们在成功率和疼痛程度方面无显著差异。EBRRM在Ⅰ类窝洞可能比Ⅱ类窝洞更有效。
