CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF PULPOTOMY TECHNIQUE WITH ELECTROSURGERY AND FORMOCRESOL IN PRIMARY MOLARS: PRELIMINAR REPORT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15332/us.v3i1.1837Keywords:
Electrosurgery, Formocresol, PulpotomyAbstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of electrosurgery to that of formocresol as pulp dressing agents in pulpotomized primary molars with carious pulp exposure.
Material and methods: Twenty-eight primary molars of 17 children were treated pulpotomy technique. The teeth were randomly assigned to the electrosurgery (group 1, experimental) and formocresol (group 2, control). All teeth were treated with rubber dam. After removing tooth decay, pulp chamber was reached. The pulp stumps were touched with the electrode in mode three in the group 1. In the group 2, formocresol was placed with a cotton pellet over the pulp stumps for 5 minutes and removed; the pulp stumps were then covered by zinc oxide – eugenol paste. The teeth of both groups were restored with stainless steel crowns. The follow – up evaluation ranged from 8 to 30 days.
Results: A clinical success (absence of mobility and fistulae) was obtained in 100% of both groups. Radiographically, 100% success was obtained in group one while in group the success decreased to 83.4%.
Conclusions: The results were not statistically significant. However, the electrosurgery could be a good alternative for pulpotomy technique in primary molars.
Downloads
References
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guidelines for Pulp Therapy for Primary and Young Permanet Teeth. Ped Dent Special Issue 2000; 22: 67 – 68.
Primosch R, Glomb T, Jerrell R. Primary tooth pulp therapy as taught in predoctoral pediatric dental programs in the United States. Ped Dent 1997; 19: 118 – 122.
Ranly D. Pulpotomy therapy in primary teeth: New modalities for old rationales. Ped Dent 1994; 16: 403 – 409.
Redig D. A comparison and evaluation of two formocresol pulpotomy technics utilizing “Buckley’s” formocresol. J Dent Child 1968; 35: 22 - 29.
Rölling I, Thylstrup A. A 3 – year follow – up study of pulpotomized primary molars treated with the formocresol technique. Scand J Dent Res 1975; 47: 47 – 53.
Hicks JM, Barr ES, Flaitz CM. Formocresol pulpotomies in primary molars: A radiographic study in a pediatric dentistry practice. J Pedodontics 1986; 10: 331 – 339.
Fuks A, Bimstein E, Bruchim A. Radiographic and histologic evaluation of the effect of two concentrations of formocresol on pulpotomized primary and young permanent teeth in monkeys. Ped Dent 1983; 5: 9 – 13.
Doyle W, Mitchell D, McDonald R. Formocresol versus calcium hydroxide in pulpotomy. J Dent Child 1962; 29: 86 – 97.
Ranly D, Lazzari E. The formocresol pulpotomy – The past, the present and the future. J Pedod 1978; 2: 115 – 127.
Myers D, Sheaf K, Kirksen T, Pashley D, Withford G, Reynolds K. Distribution fo C - 14 formaldehyde after pulpotomy with formocresol. J Am Dent Assoc 1978; 96: 805 – 813.
Pashley EL, Myers D, Pashley D, Withford G. Systemic distribution fo C – 14 formaldehyde from formocresol treated pulpotomy sites. J Dent Res 1980; 59: 603 – 608.
Waterhouse PJ. Formocresol and alternative primary molar pulpotomy medicaments: A review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1995; 11: 157 – 162.
Fuks A, Holan G, Davis J, Eidelman E. Ferric sulfate versus diluted formocresol in pulpotomiezed primary molars: Long term follow -up. Ped Dent 1997; 19: 327 - 330.
Liu J, Chen L, Chao S. Laser pulpotomy of primary teeth. Ped Dent 1999; 21: 128.
Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks A. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Ped Dent 2001; 23: 15 - 18.
Waterhouse PJ, Nunn J, Whitworth JM. An investigation of the relative efficacy of Buckley’s Formocresol and calcium hydroxide in primary molar vital pulp therapy. Brith Dent J 2000; 188: 1 – 11.
Fishman S, Udin R, Good D, Rodef F. Success of electrofulguration pulpotomies covered by zinc oxide and eugenol or calcium hydroxide: A clinical study. Ped Dent 1996; 18: 385 – 390.
Mack RB, Dean JA. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: A retrospective human study. J Dent Child 1993; 60: 107 – 114.
Anderman I. Pedodontic electrosurgery. J Pedodont 1989; 14: 202 – 213.
Sheller B, Morton TH. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: A pilot study in humans. J. Endod 1987; 13: 69 – 76.
Shulman ER, McIver FT, Burkes EJ. Comparison of electrosurgery and formocresol as pulpotomy techniques in monkey primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1987; 9: 189 – 194.
Shaw DW, Sheller B, Barrus BD, Morton TH. Electrosurgical pulpotomy – a 6 month study in primates. J Endod 1987; 13: 500 – 505.
El-Meligy O, Abdalla M, El-Baraway S, El-Tekya M, Dean JA. Histological evaluation of electrosurgery and formocresol pulpotomy techniques in primary teeth in dogs [abstract]. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001; 26: 81 – 85.
Needleman H, Hoang Ch, Allred E, Hertzberg J, Katz R. Reports of pain by children undergoing rapid palatal expansion. Ped Dent 2000; 22: 221 – 226.
Parkell Sensimatic 500SE [Instruction Manual]. p. 2 – 11.
Programa Epi – Info 6.02, OMS.
Magnusson B. Therapeutic pulpotomies in primary molars with the formocresol technique. A clinical and histological follow – up. Acta Odontol Scand 1978; 36: 157 – 165.
