Article Data

  • Views 608
  • Dowloads 121

Original Research

Open Access

Comparison of Electrosurgical Pulpotomy with Zinc Oxide Eugenol or Zinc Polycarboxylate Cements Sub-Base

  • Nematollahi H1
  • Sahebnasagh M1,*,
  • Parisay I1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.36.2.3527457504x6k880 Vol.36,Issue 2,March 2012 pp.133-138

Published: 01 March 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): Sahebnasagh M E-mail: Marzieh.saheb@gmail.com dr.imanparissay@yahoo.com

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of electrosurgical pulpotomy of human primary molars with zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) and zinc polycarboxylate (ZPC) cements. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial study, 120 primary second molar teeth were treated by electrosurgical pulpotomy. Teeth were randomly assigned to two groups according to whether ZOE or ZPC cement was used as a sub-base. Teeth were restored with stainless steel crowns and were evaluated clinically and radiographically after 3, 6, and 12 months by two independent examiners. Clinical treatment outcomes and radiographic findings were statistically analyzed using Fishers' exact test with statistically significant differences defined for P < 0.05. Results: At 12 months, the clinical and radiographic success rates in the ZOE group were 98.2% and 84.2% and in the ZPC group were 96.2% and 75%, respectively (P ≯ 0.05 for all). Conclusions: The outcomes of this study suggested that either ZPC or ZOE sub-base have similar clinical and radiographic success in electrosurgical pulpotomy.

Keywords

Pulpotomy; Tooth; Molars; electrosurgical pulpotomy; Zinc Oxide Eugenol cement; zinc polycarboxylate cement

Cite and Share

Nematollahi H,Sahebnasagh M,Parisay I. Comparison of Electrosurgical Pulpotomy with Zinc Oxide Eugenol or Zinc Polycarboxylate Cements Sub-Base. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012. 36(2);133-138.

References

1. 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 Paediatr Dent, 16: 117–127, 2006.

2.  Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A Comparison of Four Pulpotomy Tech-niques  in  Primary  Molars:  A  Long-term  Follow-up.  J  Endo,  34(8): 950–53, 2008.

3.  Patchett CL, Srinivasan V, Waterhouse PJ. Is there life after Buckley’s Formocresol? Part II - Development of a protocol for the management of  extensive  caries  in  the  primary  molar.  Int  J  Paediatr  Dent,  16: 199–206, 2006.

4.  Dean JA, Mack RB, Fukerson BT, Sanders BJ. Comparison of electro-surgical and formocresol pulpotomy procedures in children. Int J Pedi-atr Dent, 12: 177–82, 2002.

5.  Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Lambertin L, Lauriola M, Padovani M, Mal-toni C.Results of long-term experimental studies on the carcinogenic-ity of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 982: 87–105, 2002.

6.  Ranly DM, Fulton R. Reaction of rat molar pulp tissue to Formocresol, formaldehyde, and cresol. J Endod, 2(6): 176 –81, 1976.

7.  Pashley EL, Myers DR, Pashley DH, Whitford GM. Systemic distribu-tion of 14C-formaldehyde from formocresol-treated pulpotomy sites. J Dent Res, 59(3): 602–8, 1980.

8. Milnes AR. Is Formocresol Obsolete? A Fresh Look at the Evidence Concerning Safety Issues. Pediatr Dent, 30(3): 237–46, 2008.

9. Mc Donald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the Child and Ado-lescent; 9th ed. Philadelphia Mosby Co; 356–359, 2011.

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

11. Mack RB, Dean JA. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: a retrospective human study. J Dent Child, 60: 107–14, 1993.

12. Rivera N, Reyes E, Mazzaoui S, Morón A. Pulpal therapy for primary teeth: formocresol vs. electrosurgery: a clinical study. J Dent Child, 70: 71–3, 2003.

13. 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.

14. Ranly DM, Garcia-Godoy F. Current and potential pulp therapies for primary and young permanent teeth. J Dent, 28: 153–61, 2000.

15. Anderman  II.  Indications  for  use  of  electrosurgery  in  Pedodontics. Dent Clin North Am, 26: 711–28, 1982.

16. Smith NL, Scale NS, Nunn ME. Ferric sulfate pulpotomies in primary molars: A retrospective study. Pediatr Dent, 22: 192–9, 2000.

17. Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, Eidelman E. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol  in  pulpotomized  primary  molars:  long-term  follow-up. Pediatr Dent, 19: 327–30, 1997.

18. Parpagiannoulisl L. Clinical studies on ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy medicament in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 3: 126–32, 2002.

19. Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, Zhou X. Evaluation of the formocresol versus mineral trioxide aggregate primary molar pulpotomy: a meta-analysis. Oral Surgery Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endo, 102: 40–4, 2006.

20. Maroto M, Barberia E, Vera V, Garcia-Godoy F. Dentin bridge forma-tion after white mineral trioxide aggregate (white MTA) pulpotomies in primary molars. Am J Dent, 19: 75–9, 2006.

21. Fishman SA, Udin RD, Good DL, Rodef F. Success of electrofulgura-tion pulpotomies covered by zinc oxide eugenol or calcium hydroxide: a clinical study. Pediatr Dent, 18: 385–90, 1996.

22.  Shaw  DW,  Sheller  B,  Barrus  BD,  Morton  TH  JR.  Electrosurgical pulpotomy: A 6-month study in primates. J Endod, 13: 500–5, 1987.

23.  Sheller B, Morton TH Jr. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: A pilot study in humans. J Endod, 13: 69–76, 1987.

24.  Saltzman B, Sigal M, Clokie J, Rukavina, Titley K, Kulkarni V. Assess-ment  of  a  novel  alternative  to  conventional  formocresol-zinc  oxide eugenol pulpotomy for the treatment of pulpally involved human pri-mary  teeth:  diode  laser-mineral  trioxide  aggregate  pulpotomy.  Int  J Paediatr Dent, 15: 437–47, 2005.

25.  Holan G, Eidelman, Fuks AB. Long term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pedi-atr Dent, 27: 129–136, 2005.

26.  Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL, Layug MA. Outcomes of vital primary incisor ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. J Can Dent Assoc, 70: 34–8, 2004.

27.  Jabbarifar SE, Kademi AA, Ghasemi D. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy  versus  mineral  trioxide  aggrigated  in  human  primary molars. J Res Med Sci, 6: 304–307, 2004.

28.  Cotmore JM, Burke A, Lee NH, Shapiro IM. Respiratory inhibition of isolated cat liver mitochondria by eugenol. Arch Oral Biol, 24: 565–8, 1979.

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

30.  Kawahara  H,  Imanishi Y,  Oshima  H.  Biological  evaluation  on  glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res, 58: 1080–86, 1979.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top