International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research
ISSN (Print): 2333-1135 ISSN (Online): 2333-1259 Website: Editor-in-chief: Marcos Roberto Tovani Palone
Open Access
Journal Browser
International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2017, 5(4), 110-115
DOI: 10.12691/ijdsr-5-4-5
Open AccessArticle

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

Burak Çarıkçıoğlu1, , Sera Şimşek Derelioğlu1 and Yücel Yılmaz1

1Private Practice, Private Practice

Pub. Date: November 15, 2017

Cite this paper:
Burak Çarıkçıoğlu, Sera Şimşek Derelioğlu and Yücel Yılmaz. Clinical Assessment of Pulp Therapy for Primary Molars Performed Under General Anesthesia, Using Two Pulpotomy Agents-A Retrospective Cohort Study. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2017; 5(4):110-115. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-5-4-5


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), no statistically significant difference was found between the jaw and teeth types (P>0,05). As a result, recently developed tricalcium silicate based agents (BiodentineTM) can be used as an alternative to FS in pulpotomy.

ferric sulfate Tricalcium silicate BiodentineTM pulpotomy of the primary teeth general anesthesia early childhood caries

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth. Reference Manual 2015e2016; 37:244e52.
[2]  WH. Allen. The preservation of exposed dental pulps. In: Horne, W.C. Brooklyn Dental Association. The Dental Cosmos; a monthly record of dental science: 1866; 7(8): 422-428.
[3]  Fuks, Anna B., Peretz B. Current concepts in Pulp Therapy for Primary and Young Permanent Teeth. ISBN 978-3-319-27551-2. Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016.
[4]  Fuks, Anna B. Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and treatment perspectives. J Endod, 2008; 34(7): 18-24.
[5]  Laurent P, Camps J, De Meo M, Dejou J, About I. Induction of specific cell responses to a Ca(3)SiO(5)-based posterior restorative material. Dent Mater, 2008, 24: 1486-1494.
[6]  Peng W, Liu W, Zhai W, Jiang L, Li L, Chang J, Zhu Y. Effect of tricalcium silicate on the proliferation and odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp cells. J Endod, 2011; 37: 1240-1246.
[7]  Lin, P. Y., Chen, H. S., Wang, Y. H., Tu, Y. K. Primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent, 2014; 42(9): 1060-1077.
[8]  Chandrashekhar, Shashidhar, and Jyothi Shashidhar. Formocresol, still a controversial material for pulpotomy: A critical literature review. J Rest Dent 2014; 2 (3): 114.
[9]  Casas M.J., Kenny D.J., Judd P.L., Johnston D.H. Do We Still Need Formocresol in Pediatric Dentistry? J Can Dent Assoc 2005; 71(10): 749–51.
[10]  Camilleri J, Sorrentino F, Damidot D. Investigation of the hydration and bioactivity of radiopacified tricalcium silicate cement, Biodentine and MTA Angelus. Dent Mater, 2013; 29: 580-593.
[11]  Peng L, Ye L, Guo X, Tan H, Zhou X, Wang C, Li R. Evaluation of formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J, 2007; 40: 751-757.
[12]  Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Long-term outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent, 2004; 26: 44-48.
[13]  Mathewson RJ, Primosch RE. Fundamentals of Pediatric Dentistry. In: Pulp treatment, Third Edition. Quintessence Books, 1995; 257-284.
[14]  Guelmann M, McIlwain MF, Primosch RE. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin-based materials. Pediatr Dent, 2005, 27: 24-27.
[15]  Kronfeld R. The resorption of the roots of deciduous teeth. In: Gülhan A (editor). Pedodonti, 1932: 46-49.
[16]  Harokopakis-Hajishengallis, Evlambia. Physiologic root resorption in primary teeth: molecular and histological events. J Oral Science 2007; 49(1): 1-12.
[17]  Rodd, H. D., Waterhouse, P. J., Fuks, A. B., Fayle, S. A., & Moffat, M. A. Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006; 16(1): 15-23.
[18]  Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Long-term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatr Dent, 2005, 27: 129-136
[19]  Strange DM, Seale NS, Nunn ME, Strange M. Outcome of formocresol/ZOE sub-base pulpotomies utilizing alternative radiographic success criteria. Pediatr Dent, 2001; 23: 331-336.
[20]  Fei AL, Udin RD, Johnson R. A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent, 1991; 13: 327-332.
[21]  Markovic D, Zivojinovic V, Vucetic M. Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 2005, 6: 133-138.
[22]  Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, Hollweck R, Crispin A, Hickel R, Folwaczny M. Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques--randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res, 2005, 84: 1144-1148.
[23]  Smith NL, Seale NS, Nunn ME. Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent, 2000, 22: 192-199.
[24]  Hume WR. The pharmacologic and toxicological properties of zinc oxide-eugenol. J Am Dent Assoc, 1986; 113: 789-791.
[25]  Watts A, Paterson RC. Pulpal response to a zinc oxide-eugenol cement. Int Endod J, 1987; 20: 82-86.
[26]  Segura JJ, Jimenez-Rubio A, Calvo JR. Effects of formocresol alone vs. formocresol with eugenol on macrophage adhesion to plastic surfaces. Pediatr Dent, 1998, 20: 177-180.
[27]  McDonald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent. In: Treatment of deep caries, vital pulp exposure and pulpless teeth., 7th ed. St. Louis, Baltimore Mosby, 2000.
[28]  Holan G, Fuks AB, Ketlz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalgam. Pediatr Dent, 2002, 24: 212-216.
[29]  Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM, Bakland LK, Flores MT. Traumatic Dental Injuries. A manual. 2nd ed. Iowa, Blackwell Munksgaard, 2003: 10-15.
[30]  Casas MJ, Layug MA, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Two-year outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent, 2003; 25: 97-102.
[31]  Neamatollahi H, Tajik A. Comparison of clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomy in primary molars using formocresol, ferric sulphate and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). J Dent, 2006; 3: 6-14.
[32]  Farsi N, Alamoudi N, Balto K, Mushayt A. Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2005; 29: 307-311.
[33]  Peterson DS, Taylor MH, Marley JF. Calcific metamorphosis with internal resorption. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1985; 60: 231-233.
[34]  Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, Eidelman E. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: long-term follow up. Pediatr Dent, 1997; 19: 327-330.
[35]  Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent, 2001; 23: 15-18.
[36]  Maroto M, Barberia E, Planells P, Garcia Godoy F. Dentin bridge formation after mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomies in primary teeth. Am J Dent, 2005; 18: 151-154.
[37]  Eidelman E, Ulmanksy M, Michaeli Y. Histopathology of the pulp in primary incisors with deep dentinal caries. Pediatr Dent, 1992, 14: 372-375.
[38]  Hasler JE, Mitchell DF. Painless pulpitis. J Am Dent Assoc, 1970, 81: 671-677.