Contemporary clinical dentistry · 2026
Comparative Evaluation of Biodentine and Bioceramic as Pulp Medicaments Following Laser and Conventional Pulpotomy in Primary Molars: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sankar Dhivyashanthi, Arumugam Selvabalaji, Ananthan Vasanthakumari, Venkatesan Ramesh, Pandiyan Ramanandvignesh, Nisha M
Аннотация
AIM: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic success of Biodentine and Bioceramic putty as pulp medicaments following diode laser-assisted and conventional pulpotomy in primary molars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight primary molars in children aged 4-9 years were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 12 each): Conventional pulpotomy with Biodentine, conventional pulpotomy with Bioceramic, laser-assisted pulpotomy with Biodentine, and laser-assisted pulpotomy with Bioceramic. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months using Zurn and Seale criteria (2008). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, with significance set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: All groups showed favorable clinical and radiographic success at 6 months. The laser-Bioceramic group demonstrated the highest overall success (83.2%), followed by laser-Biodentine (75%) and conventional Bioceramic (75%), whereas conventional Biodentine showed comparatively lower success (50%). Differences among groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both Biodentine and Bioceramic were effective pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars, with Bioceramic showing slightly better outcomes. Laser-assisted pulpotomy provided additional clinical benefits, particularly in enhancing hemostasis and healing, although the differences were not statistically significant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight primary molars in children aged 4-9 years were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 12 each): Conventional pulpotomy with Biodentine, conventional pulpotomy with Bioceramic, laser-assisted pulpotomy with Biodentine, and laser-assisted pulpotomy with Bioceramic. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months using Zurn and Seale criteria (2008). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, with significance set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: All groups showed favorable clinical and radiographic success at 6 months. The laser-Bioceramic group demonstrated the highest overall success (83.2%), followed by laser-Biodentine (75%) and conventional Bioceramic (75%), whereas conventional Biodentine showed comparatively lower success (50%). Differences among groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both Biodentine and Bioceramic were effective pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars, with Bioceramic showing slightly better outcomes. Laser-assisted pulpotomy provided additional clinical benefits, particularly in enhancing hemostasis and healing, although the differences were not statistically significant.