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

Burak Çarıkçıoğlu^1, , Sera Şimşek Derelioğlu¹ and Yücel Yılmaz¹

¹Private Practice, Private Practice

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

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study is to clinically and radiographically assess the ferric sulfate and tricalcium silicate (Biodentine^TM) 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 Biodentine^TM and 65 were pulpotomied with ferric sulfate (FS). Patients were recalled in the post-op 6^th month for clinical examination and in the post-op 12^th 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 (Biodentine^TM) can be used as an alternative to FS in pulpotomy.

Keywords:
ferric sulfate Tricalcium silicate Biodentine^TM pulpotomy of the primary teeth general anesthesia early childhood caries

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[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.