OBJECTIVES: Pulpotomy is the favored treatment for pulp exposure in carious primary teeth. This review aimed to compare the success rates of biodentine (BD) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomies in primary molars using meta-analysis (MA) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) and also to assess the quality of the results by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
METHODS: PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus databases were searched. Additional searching was performed in clinical trial registry, reference lists of systematic reviews, and textbooks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the English language through October 2017 comparing the success of pulpotomies in vital primary molars with a follow-up of at least 6 months were selected. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. MA by random effects model, TSA, and GRADE were performed.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs (n = 474) were included. Two RCTs had low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed between MTA and BD in clinical success at 6 months (risk ratio [RR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.97-1.02; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; I2 = 0%). No difference was observed in radiographic success at follow-up of 6 months (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.15; I2 = 0%). TSA indicated lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analytic outcomes on clinical and radiographic success. GRADE assessed the evidence from the MA comparing the effect of MTA and BD in pulpotomy to be of low quality.
CONCLUSION: BD and MTA have similar clinical and radiographic success rates based on limited and low-quality evidence. Future high-quality RCTs between MTA and BD is required to confirm the evidence.
* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.