Clinical Assessment of Pulp Therapy for Primary Molars Performed Under General Anesthesia, Using Two Pulpotomy Agents-A Retrospective Cohort Study

The aim of this retrospective study is to clinically and radiographically assess the ferric sulfate and tricalcium silicate (BiodentineTM) pulpotomies. The study consisted a total of 25 children- 9 girls and 16 boys aged between 3-6 yrs. From the patients’ medical records we determined that 35 primary molars were pulpotomied with BiodentineTM and 65 were pulpotomied with ferric sulfate (FS). Patients were recalled in the post-op 6th month for clinical examination and in the post-op 12th month for both clinical and radiographic examination. While a statistically significant difference was found between the factors of age, gender and pulpotomy agents (P 0,05). As a result, recently developed tricalcium silicate based agents (BiodentineTM) can be used as an alternative to FS in pulpotomy.

[1]  S. Chandrashekhar,et al.  Formocresol, still a controversial material for pulpotomy: A critical literature review , 2014 .

[2]  Y. Tu,et al.  Primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. , 2014, Journal of dentistry.

[3]  D. Damidot,et al.  Investigation of the hydration and bioactivity of radiopacified tricalcium silicate cement, Biodentine and MTA Angelus. , 2013, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[4]  Jiang Chang,et al.  Effect of tricalcium silicate on the proliferation and odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp cells. , 2011, Journal of endodontics.

[5]  P. Laurent,et al.  Induction of specific cell responses to a Ca(3)SiO(5)-based posterior restorative material. , 2008, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[6]  A. Fuks.  Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and Treatment perspectives. , 2008, Pediatric dentistry.

[7]  X. Guo,et al.  Evaluation of formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2007, International endodontic journal.

[8]  Evlambia Harokopakis-Hajishengallis.  Physiologic root resorption in primary teeth: molecular and histological events. , 2007, Journal of oral science.

[9]  M. Moffat,et al.  Pulp therapy for primary molars. , 2006, International journal of paediatric dentistry.

[10]  A. Tajik,et al.  Comparison of clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomy in primary molars using Formocresol, Ferric Sulfate and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) , 2006 .

[11]  A. Crispin,et al.  Effectiveness of 4 Pulpotomy Techniques—Randomized Controlled Trial , 2005, Journal of dental research.

[12]  P. Judd,et al.  Do we still need formocresol in pediatric dentistry? , 2005, Journal.

[13]  V. Zivojinović,et al.  Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. , 2005, European journal of paediatric dentistry.

[14]  P. Planells,et al.  Dentin bridge formation after mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomies in primary teeth. , 2005, American journal of dentistry.

[15]  G. Holan,et al.  Long-term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. , 2005, Pediatric dentistry.

[16]  Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth. , 2005, Pediatric dentistry.

[17]  R. Primosch,et al.  Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin-based materials. , 2005, Pediatric dentistry.

[18]  N. Alamoudi,et al.  Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. , 2005, The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry.

[19]  P. Judd,et al.  Long-term outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. , 2003, Pediatric dentistry.

[20]  G. Holan,et al.  Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalga. , 2002, Pediatric dentistry.

[21]  M. Nunn,et al.  Outcome of formocresol/ZOE sub-base pulpotomies utilizing alternative radiographic success criteria. , 2001, Pediatric dentistry.

[22]  E. Eidelman,et al.  Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. , 2001, Pediatric dentistry.

[23]  J. Andreasen.  Traumatic Dental Injuries: A Manual , 2000 .

[24]  M. Nunn,et al.  Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: a retrospective study. , 2000, Pediatric dentistry.

[25]  D. Ranalli.  Traumatic dental injuries. , 1999, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[26]  J. Calvo,et al.  Effects of formocresol alone vs. formocresol with eugenol on macrophage adhesion to plastic surfaces. , 1998, Pediatric dentistry.

[27]  J. M. Davis,et al.  Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: long-term follow up. , 1997, Pediatric dentistry.

[28]  D. Odont,et al.  Histopathology of the pulp in primary incisors with deep dentinal caries. , 1992, Pediatric dentistry.

[29]  R. Udin,et al.  A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth. , 1991, Pediatric dentistry.

[30]  A. Watts,et al.  Pulpal response to a zinc oxide-eugenol cement. , 1987, International endodontic journal.

[31]  R. Primosch,et al.  Fundamentals of Pediatric Dentistry , 1987 .

[32]  W. Hume.  The pharmacologic and toxicological properties of zinc oxide-eugenol. , 1986, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[33]  D. S. Peterson,et al.  Calcific metamorphosis with internal resorption. , 1985, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[34]  J. Dean,et al.  Dentistry for the child and adolescent , 1974 .

[35]  N. Bıçakçı.  [Painless pulpitis]. , 1972, Dentoral.

[36]  R. Kronfeld.  The resorption of the roots of deciduous teeth , 1932 .