MTA and Ferric Sulfate in Pulpotomy Outcomes of Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Methods of systematic review and meta analysis were employed to compare the success rate of pulpotomy of primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and ferric sulfate (FS) as two regenerative and preservative agents, respectively. Study design: After raising a PICO question (In pulpotomy of vital carious-exposed primary molars, how does MTA compare to FS in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes?) and determining the search strategy, MeSH-matching keywords were searched in four electronic databases and retrieved papers were examined in titles, and if necessary abstracts and full texts, to be relevant. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating pulpotomy of vital primary molars after carious/traumatic exposure conducted with either FS or MTA, with at least a 6-month recall, tooth restorability, and those considering clinical and radiographic signs/symptoms, were included. The nonrandomized allocation and absence of comparison between the treatment groups caused the exclusion of the article. The quality of the RCTs and also their risk of bias (low, moderate, high), were assessed using a modification of van Tulder list; for meta-analysis of the matching studies, the extracted data were analyzed by Mantel Hanszel analysis. Results: A total number of 620 articles were found. After exclusion of the common titles and application of the eligibility criteria, 4 RCTs [12-month follow-up: n=3, 24-month follow-up: n=4, in total: 264 teeth) comparing MTA and FS, were selected. It was showed that the 12-month outcome of both materials were similar [RR= 0.642 (CI 95%: 0.225-1.833, P=0.407)], while the two-year follow-up results revealed significant differences in treatment outcome, in favor of MTA [RR was 0.300 (CI 95%: 0.132-0.683, P=0.004)]. Conclusion: MTA demonstrated superior long-term treatment outcomes in pulpotomy of primary molars than FS. Clinical Significance: Considering the advantages of MTA compared to FS and its better clinical results, use of this bioregenerative material in primary molar pulpotomy is recommended.

ferric sulfate/sulphate, mineral trioxide aggregate, MTA, primary molar, meta-analysis, pulpotomy, vital pulp therapy

1. Aeinehchi M, Dadvand S, Fayazi S, Bayat-Movahed S. Randomized controlled trial of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol for pulpo-tomy in primary molar teeth. Int Endod J 40:261-267; 2007

2. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A Comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod 34:950-955; 2008

3. Simancas-Pallares MA, Diaz-Caballero AJ, Luna-Ricardo LM. Mineral trioxide aggregate in primary teeth pulpotomy. A systematic literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 15:e942-946; 2010

4. Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Long-term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatr Dent 27:129-136; 2005

5. Malekafzali B, Shekarchi F, Asgary S. Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy in primary molars using two endodontic biomaterials. A 2-year randomised clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent 12:189-193; 2011

6. Ansari G, Ranjpour M. Mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpo-tomy of primary teeth: a 2-year follow-up. Int Endod J 43:413-418; 2010

7. Lemon RR, Steele PJ, Jeansonne BG. Ferric sulfate hemostasis: effect on osseous wound healing. Left in situ for maximum exposure. J Endod 19:170-173; 1993

8. Ibricevic H, al-Jame Q. Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow-up. J Clin Pediatr Dent 24:269-272; 2000

9. Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent 23:15-18; 2001

10. Farsi N, Alamoudi N, Balto K, Mushayt A. Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 29:307-311; 2005

11. Zarrabi MH, Javidi M, Jafarian AH, Joushan B. Immunohistochemical expression of fibronectin and tenascin in human tooth pulp capped with mineral trioxide aggregate and a novel endodontic cement. J Endod 37:1613-1618; 2011

12. Zarrabi MH, Javidi M, Jafarian AH, Joushan B. Histologic assessment of human pulp response to capping with mineral trioxide aggregate and a novel endodontic cement. J Endod 36:1778-1781; 2010

13. Fuks AB. Current concepts in vital primary pulp therapy. Eur J Paediatr Dent 3:115-120; 2002

14. Liu H, Zhou Q, Qin M. Mineral trioxide aggregate versus calcium hydroxide for pulpotomy in primary molars. Chin J Dent Res 14:121-125; 2011

15. Naik S, Hegde AH. Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy agent in primary molars: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 23:13-16; 2005

16. Nadin G, Goel BR, Yeung CA, Glenny AM. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD003220; 2003

17. Ng FK, Messer LB. Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy medica-ment: an evidence-based assessment. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 9:58-73; 2008

18. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 3:i-iv, 1-98; 1999

19. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88:156-175; 2008

20. Maia LC, Antonio AG. Systematic reviews in dental research. A guideline. J Clin Pediatr Dent 37:117-124; 2012

21. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guide-lines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1290-1299; 2003

22. Doyle TL, Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL. Mineral trioxide aggregate produces superior outcomes in vital primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent 32:41-47; 2010

23. Erdem AP, Guven Y, Balli B, Ilhan B, Sepet E, Ulukapi I, et al. Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol pulpoto-mies: a 24-month study. Pediatr Dent 33:165-170; 2011

24. Odabas ME, Alacam A, Sillelioglu H, Deveci C. Clinical and radiographic success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate and ferric sulphate pulpotomies performed by dental students. Eur J Paediatr Dent 13:118-122; 2012

25. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312:71-72; 1996

26. Masters K. Edgar Dale’s Pyramid of Learning in medical education: A literature review. Med Teach 35:e1584-1593; 2013

27. Schulz KF. Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother? Evid Based Nurs 4:4-6; 2001

28. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Stat Med 8:441-454; 1989

29. Maroto M, Barberia E, Vera V, Garcia-Godoy F. Dentin bridge formation after white mineral trioxide aggregate (white MTA) pulpotomies in primary molars. Am J Dent 19:75-79; 2006

30. Salako N, Joseph B, Ritwik P, Salonen J, John P, Junaid TA. Comparison of bioactive glass, mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol as pulpotomy agents in rat molar. Dent Traumatol 19:314-320; 2003