LAUSR

ObjectiveThis study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials in order to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of primary teeth pulpotomy performed with biodentine, when compared to MTA.MethodsSearch strategies were conducted in nine databases on August 5th, 2017, update on February 14th, 2018. Clinical articles were selected, which were in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the research objective. They were analyzed by meta-analysis at three time points (6, 12, and 18 months).ResultsOut of the 233 publications initially identified, only 9 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the review. The 6-month overall clinical (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.96–1.02, p = 0.92) and radiographic success rates (RR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.92–1.00, p = 0.28) showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically. The 12 and 18-month overall clinical success rates, respectively (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.97–1.04, p = 0.77; RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.92–1.05, p = 0.74) and radiographic success rates, respectively (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.92–1.02, p = 0.11; RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.91–1.10, p = 0.56) also showed that biodentine vs. MTA did not differ statistically.ConclusionThere is no superiority of one material over the other, MTA versus biodentine.Clinical relevanceThis systematic review comparing the performance of biodentine in relation to the MTA when used in the pulpotomy technique in primary teeth. Although MTA is considered the gold standard material for pulpotomy procedures, it has some drawbacks (poor handling, staining potential, long setting time); thus, it is important to evaluate the clinical performance of other calcium silicate-based cements like biodentine that overcome this drawbacks.