IADR Abstract Archives
Comparative Evaluation Of Dentin Bridge Formation using MTA,Biodentine and Propolis: A Randomised Controlled Double Blinded Clinical Trial
Objectives: 1. To assess the maintainave of pulp vitality over the follow up period.
2. To assess histologically, the quality and quantity of the dentin bridge formed in terms of continuity, morphology and thickness.
Methods: 102 caries free and periodontal healthy premolars indicated for orthodontic extraction were subjected to mechanical pulp exposure and assigned to 1 of 3 experimental groups depending on the pulp capping agent used: MTA, Biodentine, or Propolis. After 3 months, the teeth were extracted and sent for histopathology analysis.
Results: All the teeth analyzed after follow up responded positively to pulp sensibility tests. Histologically, Group 2 (Biodentine) and Group 1(MTA) showed superior and statistically significant results in terms of continuity, morphology and thickness of dentin bridge when compared to Propolis (p=0.0). Though the values obtained in Group 2 was higher than Group 1, there was no statistically significant difference between them.
Conclusions: 1. All the three tested materials had the ability to form dentin bridge.
2. The continuity and morphologyand thickness of dentin bridge formed in Group 2 ( Biodentine ) and Group 1 (MTA ) were superior than Group 3 ( Propolis).
2. To assess histologically, the quality and quantity of the dentin bridge formed in terms of continuity, morphology and thickness.
Methods: 102 caries free and periodontal healthy premolars indicated for orthodontic extraction were subjected to mechanical pulp exposure and assigned to 1 of 3 experimental groups depending on the pulp capping agent used: MTA, Biodentine, or Propolis. After 3 months, the teeth were extracted and sent for histopathology analysis.
Results: All the teeth analyzed after follow up responded positively to pulp sensibility tests. Histologically, Group 2 (Biodentine) and Group 1(MTA) showed superior and statistically significant results in terms of continuity, morphology and thickness of dentin bridge when compared to Propolis (p=0.0). Though the values obtained in Group 2 was higher than Group 1, there was no statistically significant difference between them.
Conclusions: 1. All the three tested materials had the ability to form dentin bridge.
2. The continuity and morphologyand thickness of dentin bridge formed in Group 2 ( Biodentine ) and Group 1 (MTA ) were superior than Group 3 ( Propolis).
2959276_File000000.jpg