Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized clinical trial compares three calcium silicate-based cements in primary tooth pulpotomy, indicating differences in effectiveness.
Advancements in technology have enabled successful outcomes to be achieved in primary tooth pulpotomy treatments using various materials. This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the 12-month clinical and radiographic success rates of three calcium silicate-based cements with different physical forms in primary tooth pulpotomy. A total of 112 primary second molars from 70 children were block-randomized into three groups: ProRoot® MTA (powder–liquid form, n = 38), NeoPutty® (ready-to-use putty form, n = 36), and TheraCal PT® (light-cured, resin-modified calcium silicate, n = 38). Teeth underwent pulpotomy followed by stainless steel crown restoration. Clinical and radiographic success rates were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed at a significance level of 0.05. At the 12-month follow-up, the clinical and radiographic success rates were 97.2% and 91.7% for NeoPutty® MTA, 97.4% and 84.2% for ProRoot® MTA, and 91.9% and 67.6% for TheraCal PT®, respectively. Radiographically, TheraCal PT® demonstrated significantly lower success compared to the other materials (p = 0.026). Although the light-cured TheraCal PT® demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable to those of MTA-based materials, its inferior radiographic performance raises concerns regarding its long-term effectiveness. The study was registered retrospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov) with the ID NCT06874062 (2025-03-03).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
YÜCEL et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: