itle: Evaluation of Pulpotomy using Neoputty MTA vs. Pulpectomy using Metapex in Children (4-9 years). Objective: Compare clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy vs. pulpectomy for vital primary molars with irreversible pulpitis. Design: Randomized controlled trial with 2-arm parallel groups. Participants: Healthy children aged 4-9 with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Outcomes: Primary (pain relief, absence of complications) and secondary (radiographic success).
Background and Rationale Treating irreversible pulpitis in primary molars is challenging due to complex root canal anatomy and rapid progression of pulp inflammation. Pulpectomy is the standard approach, but its technical difficulty often necessitates referral to specialists. New bioactive materials like Neoputty MTA and improved understanding of pulp biology justify reevaluation of less invasive treatments like pulpotomy. This study addresses the lack of clinical trials comparing pulpotomy with pulpectomy in cases of irreversible pulpitis in primary molars. Aim To compare the clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy using Neoputty MTA vs. pulpectomy using Metapex in vital primary molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis in children aged 49 years. Hypothesis Null Hypothesis: No significant difference in treatment outcome between pulpotomy and pulpectomy. Methodology Participants * Setting: Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University * Eligibility: Healthy (ASA I/II), cooperative children aged 49 with vital primary molars exhibiting signs of irreversible pulpitis. * Exclusion: Necrotic pulp, periapical pathology, pathological mobility, poor restorability, or refusal of crown placement. Sample Size 40 teeth per group (total 80), accounting for 15% dropout. Based on expected 20% difference in outcomes and 80% power. Interventions Pulpotomy (Test Group): Removal of coronal pulp followed by Neoputty MTA placement and restoration. Pulpectomy (Control Group): Complete root canal debridement and obturation with Metapex. Same restoration and crown protocol. Outcomes Primary: Post-operative pain (VAS), clinical and radiographic success over 12 months. Secondary: Pain assessment at 24 hours and 7 days post-treatment using VAS. Follow-up Timeline Evaluations at baseline, 24h, 1w, 3m, 6m, 9m, and 12m post-intervention. Randomization and Blinding Randomization via opaque sealed envelopes. Outcome assessors blinded.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
70
Pulpotomy (Test Group): Removal of coronal pulp followed by Neoputty MTA placement and restoration.
pulpectomy: removal of radicular pulp followed by metapex placement and final restoration
Post-operative pain
by Visual analog scale from zero to ten. which zero is better outcome and ten is worse outcome
Time frame: after 24h , 1week, 3 months, 6 months ,9 months and 12 months
Pain on percussion
Tapping the tooth with the blunt end of the mirror
Time frame: after 24h , 1week, 3 months, 6 months ,9 months and 12 months
Number of tooth with Swelling or fistula
Clinical examination
Time frame: after 24h , 1week, 3 months, 6 months ,9 months and 12 months
Mobility
Clinical examination
Time frame: after 24h , 1week, 3 months, 6 months ,9 months and 12 months
Radiolucency at the furcation or periapical area
Digital periapical intraoral radiograph
Time frame: after 24h , 1week, 3 months, 6 months ,9 months and 12 months
Internal or external root resorption
Digital periapical intraoral radiograph
Time frame: after 24h , 1week, 3 months, 6 months ,9 months and 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.