Zinc Oxide−Eugenol Pulpotomy in Primary Teeth: A 24-Month Follow-up

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of zinc oxide–eugenol (ZOE) as the only pulp capping agent in pulpotomies carried out on decayed primary molars after a follow-up period of 24 months. Study design: In total, 60 pulpotomies were performed on 38 patients aged 3 to 11 years. Pulpotomy treatment consisted of the removal of the coronal pup tissue, subsequent hemostasis, irrigation with saline solution, drying and pressure with sterile cotton pellets, and placement of a thick regular ZOE base with a minimal amount of eugenol directly over the vital radicular pulp. Additionally, a histopathologic study was carried out on some of the molars treated. Results: After a 24-month follow-up, we considered 51 procedures to be successful and 9 failures using clinical and radiographic criteria; most of the failures occurred between the 12th and 18th month. Conclusions: Results suggest that the proposed pulpotomy treatment with ZOE as the only capping agent may be considered as an alternative technique in the pulp treatment of primary molars.

Pulpotomy, primary molars, zinc oxide-eugenol

1. Kagihara LE, Niederhauser VP, Stark M. Assessment, management, and prevention of early childhood caries. J Am Acad Nurse Pract, 21: 1–10, 2009.

2. Lin PY, Chen HS, Wang YH, Tu YK. Primary molar pulpotomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent. 42:1060–77, 2014.

3. Noorollahian H. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formo-cresol as pulp medicaments for pulpotomies in primary molars. Br Dent J, 204: E20, 2008.

4. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A comparison of four pulpotomy tech-niques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod, 34: 950–5, 2008.

5. Fuks AB, Papagiannoulis L. Pulpotomy in primary teeth: review of the literature according to standardized assessment criteria. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent, 7: 64–71, 2006.

6. Ranly DM. Pulpotomy therapy in primary teeth: new modalities for old rationales. Pediatr Dent, 16: 403–9, 1994.

7. Morawa AP, Straffon LH, Han SS, Corpron RE. Clinical evaluation of pulpotomies using dilute formocresol. ASDC J Dent Child, 42: 360–3, 1975.

8. Fuks AB, Bimstein E. Clinical evaluation of diluted formocresol pulpo-tomies in primary teeth of school children. Pediatr Dent, 3: 321–4, 1981.

9. Holan G, Fuks AB, Ketiz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalgam. Pediatr Dent, 24: 212–6, 2002.

10. Lewis BB, Chestner SB. Formaldehyde in dentistry: a review of muta-genic and carcinogenic potential. J Am Dent Assoc, 103: 429–34, 1981.

11. Judd PL, Kenny DJ. Formocresol concern. A review. J Can Dent Assoc, 53: 401–4, 1987.

12. Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL, Johnston DH. Do we still need formo-cresol in pediatric dentistry? J Can Dent Assoc, 71: 749–51, 2005.

13. Castro A. Current concepts in vital pulpotomies in primary teeth. J Mich Dent Assoc, 87: 26–8, 2005.

14. Fuks AB. Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and treatment perspectives. Pediatr Dent, 30: 211–9, 2008.

15. Milnes AR. Is formocresol obsolete? A fresh look at the evidence concerning safety issues. J Endod, 34 (7suppl): S40–6, 2008.

16. Lewis BB. The obsolescence of formocresol. Br Dent J, 207: 525–8, 2009.

17. García-Godoy F. A 42-month clinical evaluation of glutaraldehyde pulpo-tomies in primary teeth. J Pedod, 10: 148–55, 1986.

18. Fuks AB, Bimstein E, Guelman M, Klein H. Assessment of a 2% buffered glutaraldehyde solution in pulpotomized primary teeth of school children. ASDC J Dent Child, 57: 371–5, 1990.

19. Rusmah M, Rahim ZH. Diffusion of buffered glutaraldehyde and formo-cresol from pulpotomized primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child, 59: 108–10, 1992.

20. Loh A, O’Hoy P, Tran X, Charles R, Hughes A, Kubo K, Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment: evaluation of the formocresol versus ferric sulfate primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent, 26: 401–9, 2004.

21. Peng L, Ye L, Guo X, Tan H, Zhou X, Wang C, Li R. Evaluation of formo-cresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J, 40: 751–7, 2007.

22. Sönmez D, Durutürk L. Ca(OH)2 pulpotomy in primary teeth. Part I: internal resorption as a complication following pulpotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 106: e94–8, 2008.

23. Sonmez D, Duruturk L. Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns. Br Dent J, 208: E18; discussion 408–9, 2010.

24. Sakai VT, Moretti AB, Olivieira TM, Fornetti AP, Santos CF, Machado MA, Abdo RC. Pulpotomy of human primary molars with MTA and Portland cement: A randomized controlled trial. Br Dent J, 207: E5, discussion 128–9, 2009.

25. Ansari G, Ranjpour M. Mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy of primary teeth: 2-year follow-up. Int Endod J, 43: 413–18, 2010.

26. Erdem AP, Guven Y, Balli B, Ilhan B, Sepet E, Ulukapi I, Aktoren O. Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formo-cresol pulpotomies: A 24-month study. Pediatr Dent, 33: 165–70, 2011.

27. Malekafzali B, Shekarchi F, Asgary S. Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy in primary molars using two endodontic biomaterials. A 2-year random-ized clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 12: 189–93, 2011.

28. Sabbarini J, Mohamed A, Wahba N, El-Meligy O, Dean J. Comparison of enamel matrix derivate versus formocresol as pulpotomy agents in the primary dentition. J Endod, 34: 284–7, 2008.

29. Srinivasan V, Patchett CL, Waterhouse PJ. Is there life after Buckley’s formocresol? Part I – A narrative review of alternative interventions and materials. Int J Paediatric Dent, 16: 117–27, 2006.

30. Fadavi S, Anderson AW. A comparison of the pulpal response to freeze-dried bone, calcium hydroxide, and zinc oxide-eugenol in primary teeth in two cynomolgus monkeys. Pediatr Dent, 8: 52–6, 1996.

31. da Silva LA, de Paula e Silva FW, Leonardo MR, Assed S. Radiographic evaluation of pulpal and periapical response of dogs’ teeth after pulpo-tomy and use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-7 as a capping agent. J Dent Child (Chic), 75: 14–9, 2008.

32. Bahrololoomi Z, Moeintaghavi A, Emtiazi M, Hosseini G. Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molars after formocresol and elec-trosurgical pulpotomy: A randomized clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res, 19: 219–23, 2008.

33. Odabas ME, Bodur H, Baris E, Demir C. Clinical, radiographic, and histopathologic evaluation of Nd:YAG laser pulpotomy on human primary teeth. J Endod, 33: 415–21, 2007.

34. Toomarian L, Fekrazad R, Sharifi D, Baghaei M, Rahimi H, Eslami B. Histopathological evaluation of pulpotomy with Er,Cr:YSGG laser vs formocresol. Lasers Med Sci, 23: 443–50, 2008.

35. Watts A, Paterson RC. Pulpal response to a zinc oxide-eugenol cement. Int Endod J, 20: 82–6, 1987.

36. Chien MM, Setzer S, Cleaton-Jones P. How does zinc oxide-eugenol compare to ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy material? SADJ, 56: 130–5, 2001.

37. Hui-Derksen EK, Chen CF, Majewski R, Tootla RGH, Boynton JR. Reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol pulpotomy: A retrospective study. Pediatr Dent, 35: 43–6, 2013.

38. Kopel HM. Direct pulp-capping procedure in primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child, 60: 141–9, 1992.

39. Hembree JH Jr, Andrews JT. Zinc oxide as a pulp capping agent. J Miss Dent Assoc, 30: 10–13, 1974.

40. Sveen OB. Pulp capping of primary teeth with zinc oxide-eugenol. Odontol Tidskr, 77: 427–36, 1969.

41. Tronstad L, Mjör IA. Capping of the inflamed pulp. Oral Surg, 34: 477–85, 1972.

42. Vostatek SF, Kanellis MJ, Weber-Gasparoni K, Gregorsok RL. Sodium hypochlorite pulpotomies in primary teeth: A retrospective assessment. Pediatr Dent, 33: 327–32, 2011.

43. Camp JH. Diagnosis dilemmas in vital pulp therapy: treatment of tooth-ache is changing, especially in young, immature teeth. Pediatr Dent, 30: 197–205, 2008.

44. Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy for carious vital primary incisors: Randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Dent, 34: 112–9, 2012.

45. Ritwik P. A review of pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. J Calif Dent Assoc, 41: 585–95, 2013.

46. Schröder U. Agreement between clinical and histologic findings in chronic coronal pulpitis in primary teeth. Scand J Dent Res, 85: 583–7, 1977.

47. Berger JE. Pulp tissue reaction to formocresol and zinc oxide-eugenol. J Dent Child, 32: 13–28, 1965.

48. Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Cleaton-Jones P, Michaeli Y. Pulp response to ferric sulfate, diluted formocresol and IRM in pulpotomized primary baboon teeth. J Dent Child, 64: 254–9, 1997.

49. Hansen HP, Ravn JJ, Ulrich D. Vital pulpotomy in primary molars: A clinical and histological investigation of the effect of zinc oxide-eugenol cement and Ledermix. Scand J Dent Res, 79: 13–23, 1971.

50. Jabbarifar SE, Khademi AA, Gahsemi D. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy versus mineral trioxide aggregate in human primary molar tooth. J Res Med Sci, 6: 304–7, 2004.

51. Smith NL, Seale NS, Nunn ME. Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: A retrospective study. Pediatr Dent, 22: 192–9, 2000.

52. Papagiannoulis L. Clinical studies on ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy medicament in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 4: 28–32, 2003.

53. Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Long-term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatr Dent, 27; 129–36, 2005.

54. Chédid JC, Pilipili C. A 24 month evaluation of zinc oxide pulpotomy on primary canines. Rev Belge Med Dent, 63: 69–76, 2008.

55. Guelmann M, Fair J, Turner C, Courts FJ. The success of emergency pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent, 24: 217–20, 2002.

56. Croll TP, Killian CM. Zinc oxide-eugenol pulpotomy and stainless steel crown restoration of a primary molar. Quintessence Int, 23: 383–8, 1992.

57. Farooq NS, Coll JA, Kuwabara A, Shelton P. Success rates of formocresol pulpotomy and indirect pulp therapy in the treatment of deep dentinal caries in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent, 22: 278–86, 2000.

58. Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, Fayle SA, Moffat MA; British Society of Paediatric Dentistry. Pulp therapy for primary molars. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent, 16(suppl 1): 15–23, 2006.