Affiliation:
1. National University Centre for Oral Health Singapore (NUCOHS) Singapore City Singapore
2. Faculty of Dentistry National University of Singapore Singapore City Singapore
3. Oral Care Health Innovation and Designs Singapore (ORCHIDS) National University of Singapore Singapore City Singapore
Abstract
AbstractAimThis study aimed to compare the outcome of SCR and Pulpotomy in teeth with deep caries extending at least 75% into dentine.MethodologyThis two‐armed, parallel‐group, randomized, superiority trial included vital mature permanent teeth with deep primary or secondary caries diagnosed radiographically as being at least 75% into the thickness of dentine, without clinical signs of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or radiographic evidence of a periapical lesion. Carious teeth were blindly allocated to receive either SCR or Pulpotomy using computer‐generated randomized patient codes concealed in opaque envelopes. All teeth were reviewed clinically and radiographically at 6 months and 1 year post‐treatment. Using a significance level of p < .05, the log rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare the outcome of SCR and Pulpotomy and to identify potential prognostic factors, respectively.ResultsIn all, 58 teeth in the SCR group and 55 teeth in the pulpotomy group completed treatment, after excluding 6 teeth because they did not complete the allocated treatment and another due to severe periodontal disease. At one year, 57/58 (98.3%) teeth from the SCR group and 48/55 (87.3%) teeth from the Pulpotomy group were available for analysis. One tooth in the Pulpotomy group (2.1%) and eight teeth in the SCR group (14.0%) required the further intervention of root canal treatment (p < .05). There were no other significant prognostic factors for survival. Overall, 91.4% of teeth treated with either SCR or Pulpotomy survived without requiring further intervention over a period of one year. No other adverse events occurred over the review period.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, Pulpotomy fares better than SCR in preserving the remaining pulp and periapical health. As a treatment modality, Pulpotomy carries greater cost outlay to patient and takes a longer time to complete treatment than SCR. Long‐term follow‐up is needed to study the pulpal and restorative outcomes of Pulpotomy and SCR.