Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Bioceramic Putty MTA Versus MTA in Pulpotomy of Immature Permanent Molars

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Bioceramic Putty Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Versus Mineral Trioxide Aggregate in Pulpotomy of Immature Permanent Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The present study aims to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of bioceramics putty MTA versus MTA in the pulpotomy of immature permanent molars

The main question it aims to answer is:

Will the biocermaics putty MTA have higher clinical and radiographic success rates than MTA in pulpotomy of immature permanent molars?

limited clinical trials have reported the clinical and radiographic outcomes after pulpotomy with premixed putty bioceramic MTA and conventional MTA in young permanent molars.

MTA has various drawbacks, such as difficulty in handling, long setting time, discoloration of the tooth, and its form as a powder/liquid which raise the responsibility for major material waste. To conquer these issues, bioceramic materials have been developed premixed putty bioceramic MTA is a ready-to-use material for immediate placement with zero waste, saving cost and chair time. Thus, the present study aims to evaluate bioceramic putty MTA's clinical and radiographic success versus MTA in pulpotomy of immature permanent molars.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients aged from 6-8 years of both sexes have immature permanent molars
• with deep carious lesions indicated for pulpotomy.
• Restorable young permanent molars with no clinical symptoms of irreversible pulpitis.
• Permanent molars without any clinical sign of pulp necrosis including swelling, fistula, pain on percussion, and pathologic tooth mobility.
• Permanent molars without any adverse radiographic findings including thickening of the periodontal ligament space, radiolucency at the interradicular or periapical regions
• permanent molars without internal and external root resorption, or calcification in pulp tissue.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Medically compromised patients who have systemic disease.
• Uncooperative patients who refuse treatment.
• Permanent molars that were previously restored.