Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2021 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Miana, Larisse Pimenta |
| Orientador(a): |
Bento, Letícia Westphalen |
| Banca de defesa: |
Elias, Gracieli Prado,
Dalpian, Débora Martini |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso embargado |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Franciscana
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Mestrado em Ciências da Saúde e da Vida
|
| Departamento: |
Ciências da Saúde e da Vida
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://www.tede.universidadefranciscana.edu.br:8080/handle/UFN-BDTD/1041
|
Resumo: |
Primary teeth are extremely important for the child's masticatory function, articulation, phonation, esthetics, occlusion, jaw and facial muscles development. Despite the reduction in the reduction in the prevalence of dental caries, endodontic approaches are still required to maintain the dental elements in cases of pulp involvement. Pulpectomy consists of the complete removal of the pulp tissue followed by instrumentation and filling of the root canals, which in cases of primary teeth must be performed with a material with characteristics compatible with the rhizolysis process. The success of the endodontic treatment can be compromised due to the use of an inappropriate filling material, being of extreme importance the use of biocompatible materials for the periapical tissues. Currently, there is no endodontic paste that meets all the desirable requirements. In this context, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the different studies in relation to the clinical and radiographic success rate of the endodontic pastes used in pulp therapy for primary teeth. For this, a search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The search strategy was based on the following descriptors (Medical Subject Heading terms - MeSH) and/or synonyms: ("deciduous tooth" OR "deciduous teeth" OR "deciduous dentition" OR "deciduous dentitions" OR " primary dentition" OR "primary dentitions" ” OR “milk tooth” OR “primary teeth” OR “primary tooth” OR “milk teeth” OR “baby teeth” OR “baby tooth” ) ("root canal filling material" OR "root canal sealants" OR "root canal obturation " OR “root canal obturations” OR “endodontic obturation” OR “endodontic obturations” OR “pulp capping and pulpectomy agents“) AND (“zinc oxide” OR iodoform OR “calcium hydroxide” OR “vitapex” OR “metapex” OR “endoflas ”). clinical trials were included whose comparison groups included one of the three compounds in the preparation of toothpaste for filling primary teeth and presented clinical and radiographic follow-up results of at least 6 months, published in the last 30 years in English or Portuguese. The studies were grouped according to the composition of pastes used as follows: studies that tested pastes based on Iodoform, based on Calcium Hydroxide, based on Zinc Oxide and Eugenol or mixed pastes. In the group of mixed folders, articles that associate two or the three compounds from the previous groups were included. After the analysis, it was possible to verify that the presence of iodoform in the filling pastes stood out, considering that Endoflas and Vitapex/Metapex, composed of about 40% of this material, were the ones that most stood out and had the best success rates . This advantage has been attributed mainly to iodoform, due to the high rate of material resorption limited to the extra-rooted extruded excess and to intraradicular resorption at practically the same rate as rhizolysis, thus fulfilling one of the basic requirements for an ideal endodontic material for primary teeth. There are different pastes that include iodoform in their composition, however, the best results were obtained with pastes with at least 40% of this component. However, it is not possible to classify a paste composition as the most suitable to be used as a filling paste for endodontics in primary teeth, as there is a lack of more comparative studies and longer follow-up time between existing formulations. Furthermore, the difficulty of finding an ideal formulation with traditional materials opens up the possibility and emergence of alternative components for the same purpose. |
