CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07769697Updated Aug 18, 2026

Comparative Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Different Pulpotomy Materials in Primary Molars

An interventional study of Pulpotomy and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) in Dental Caries, Pulp Exposure, Dental and Primary Teeth, sponsored by Inonu University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Open to participants aged 4 Years to 9 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-18.

Sponsored by Inonu University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
140
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
4 Years to 9 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This randomized clinical trial compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of ferric sulfate (FS), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium-enriched mixture (CEM), and TheraCal PT used for pulpotomy in primary molars. A total of 140 restorable primary molars from children aged 4 to 9 years were randomly allocated to four treatment groups. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to compare treatment success and failure among the four pulpotomy materials.

Read the detailed description

Vital pulpotomy is a well-established treatment for preserving the vitality of primary molars with carious pulp exposure when the radicular pulp is considered healthy. Several pulpotomy materials have been proposed, including ferric sulfate (FS), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium-enriched mixture (CEM), and TheraCal PT. Although FS, MTA, and CEM have been extensively investigated, clinical evidence regarding the performance of TheraCal PT in primary molar pulpotomy remains limited.

This study was designed as a single-center, parallel-group, randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of FS, MTA, CEM, and TheraCal PT used for pulpotomy in primary molars. A total of 140 restorable primary molars from children aged 4 to 9 years were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups. Following pulpotomy, all teeth were restored according to the study protocol and evaluated clinically and radiographically at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

The primary outcome measure was the 12-month clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure patterns and the influence of tooth type, arch, and restoration type on treatment success.

02

Conditions studied

  • Dental Caries
  • Pulp Exposure, Dental
  • Primary Teeth
  • Primary Molar Pulpotomy

Keywords

  • Primary teeth Pulpotomy
  • Primary Molars
  • Vital Pulp Therapy
  • Mineral Trioxide Aggregate
  • Calcium-Enriched Mixture
  • TheraCal PT
  • Ferric Sulfate
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
4 Years to 9 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Patient-related criteria

  • Children aged 4-9 years.
  • Healthy children with no systemic disease.
  • No regular medication use.
  • No known allergy to the study materials.
  • Cooperative patients able to undergo dental treatment.
  • Written informed consent obtained from the parent or legal guardian. Tooth-related criteria
  • Restorable primary molars with deep carious lesions requiring pulpotomy.
  • Clinical signs and symptoms consistent with reversible pulpitis (no spontaneous, lingering, or nocturnal pain).
  • No tenderness to percussion or pathological mobility.
  • No swelling or sinus tract associated with the study tooth.
  • Hemostasis achieved within 5 minutes after coronal pulp amputation.
  • No radiographic evidence of internal or external root resorption, furcation or periapical radiolucency, periodontal ligament widening, or pulp calcification.
  • At least two-thirds of the root length remaining.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Failure to meet any of the inclusion criteria.
  • No pulp exposure or pulp exposure ≤1 mm after complete caries removal.
  • Persistent pain during caries removal despite adequate local anesthesia, suggestive of advanced pulpal inflammation.
  • Excessive pulpal bleeding that could not be controlled within 5 minutes.
  • Presence of purulent exudate from the pulp.
  • Loss of patient cooperation during treatment.
  • Withdrawal of parental consent or inability to attend follow-up visits.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
140 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    MTA Pulpotomy

    Mineral Trioxide Aggregate

    Procedure: Pulpotomy · Other: Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA)

  • Active comparator
    CEM Pulpotomy

    Calcium-Enriched Mixture (CEM)

    Procedure: Pulpotomy · Other: Calcium-Enriched Mixture (CEM)

  • Active comparator
    Ferric Sulfate Pulpotomy

    Ferric Sulfate

    Procedure: Pulpotomy · Other: Ferric Sulfate

  • Active comparator
    TheraCal PT Pulpotomy

    TheraCal PT

    Procedure: Pulpotomy · Other: TheraCal PT

Interventions

  • ProcedurePulpotomy

    Pulpotomy is a vital pulp therapy procedure in which the coronal pulp tissue is removed while preserving the vitality of the radicular pulp. Following hemostasis, the assigned pulpotomy material was applied according to the study protocol before definitive restoration of the tooth.

  • OtherMineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA)

    Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) was used as the pulpotomy material following coronal pulp removal and hemostasis, according to the study protocol.

  • OtherCalcium-Enriched Mixture (CEM)

    Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) was used as the pulpotomy material following coronal pulp removal and hemostasis, according to the study protocol.

  • OtherFerric Sulfate

    Ferric sulfate was used as the pulpotomy material following coronal pulp removal and hemostasis, according to the study protocol.

  • OtherTheraCal PT

    TheraCal PT was used as the pulpotomy material following coronal pulp removal and hemostasis, according to the study protocol.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Rate of clinical success at 12 months

    Clinical success was defined as the absence of spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, or sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all clinical success criteria at the 12-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 12 months

  2. Rate of radiographic success at 12 months

    Radiographic success was defined as the absence of periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, and periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all radiographic success criteria at the 12-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rate of clinical success at 3 months

    Clinical success was defined as the absence of spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, or sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all clinical success criteria at the 3-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 3 months

  2. Rate of clinical success at 6 months

    Clinical success was defined as the absence of spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, or sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all clinical success criteria at the 6-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 6 months

  3. Rate of clinical success at 9 months

    Clinical success was defined as the absence of spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, or sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all clinical success criteria at the 9-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 9 months

  4. Rate of radiographic success at 3 months

    Radiographic success was defined as the absence of periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, and periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all radiographic success criteria at the 3-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 3 months

  5. Rate of radiographic success at 6 months

    Radiographic success was defined as the absence of periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, and periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all radiographic success criteria at the 6-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 6 months

  6. Rate of radiographic success at 9 months

    Radiographic success was defined as the absence of periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, and periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars meeting all radiographic success criteria at the 9-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 9 months

  7. Rate of clinical failure patterns at 12 months

    Clinical failure patterns included spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, and sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars exhibiting each clinical failure pattern at the 12-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 12 months

  8. Rate of radiographic failure patterns at 12 months

    Radiographic failure patterns included periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, and periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars exhibiting each radiographic failure pattern at the 12-month follow-up.

    Time frame: 12 months

  9. Rate of clinical treatment failure according to tooth type at 12 months

    Clinical treatment failure was defined as the presence of spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, or sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars with clinical treatment failure according to tooth type (first or second primary molar).

    Time frame: 12 months

  10. Rate of radiographic treatment failure according to tooth type at 12 months

    Radiographic treatment failure was defined as the presence of periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, or periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars with radiographic treatment failure according to tooth type (first or second primary molar).

    Time frame: 12 months

  11. Rate of clinical treatment failure according to dental arch at 12 months

    Clinical treatment failure was defined as the presence of spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, or sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars with clinical treatment failure according to dental arch (maxillary or mandibular).

    Time frame: 12 months

  12. Rate of radiographic treatment failure according to dental arch at 12 months

    Radiographic treatment failure was defined as the presence of periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, or periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars with radiographic treatment failure according to dental arch (maxillary or mandibular).

    Time frame: 12 months

  13. Rate of clinical treatment failure according to restoration type at 12 months

    Clinical treatment failure was defined as the presence of spontaneous pain, tenderness to percussion, pathological mobility, swelling, or sinus tract/fistula. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars with clinical treatment failure according to restoration type (stainless steel crown or composite resin restoration).

    Time frame: 12 months

  14. Rate of radiographic treatment failure according to restoration type at 12 months

    Radiographic treatment failure was defined as the presence of periodontal ligament widening, internal or external root resorption, furcation radiolucency, or periapical radiolucency. The outcome will be reported as the percentage of treated primary molars with radiographic treatment failure according to restoration type (stainless steel crown or composite resin restoration).

    Time frame: 12 months

06

Study locations

1 site
  • Inonu University
    Battalgazi, Malatya, Turkey (Türkiye)
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — De-identified individual participant data underlying the results reported in this study will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. The study protocol and statistical analysis plan will also be available. Data will be shared for the purpose of scientific research after publication.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07769697
Lead sponsor
Inonu University
Responsible party
Şefika Nur Özden Işik (Research Assistant, Inonu University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 18, 2026
Start date
Oct 21, 2021
Primary completion
Oct 21, 2022
Completion
Oct 21, 2022
Last update
Aug 18, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion