Article Data

  • Views 238
  • Dowloads 138

Original Research

Open Access

Comparative Evaluation of Formocresol and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate in Pulpotomized Primary Molars - 2 Year Follow Up

  • Airen P1,*,
  • Shigli A1
  • Airen B1

1Department of Pedodontics, Modem Dental College and Research Centre, Indore, India

2Bharti Vidyapeeth Dental College, Wanlesswadi, Sangli, Maharashtra, India

3Dept of Community Dentistry, Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, Indore, India

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.37.2.h427vr8157444462 Vol.37,Issue 2,December 2012 pp.143-147

Published: 01 December 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): Airen P E-mail: priyankairen@gmail.com

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to clinically and radiographically evaluate Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) as an agent for pulpotomy in primary teeth and to compare it with that of Formocresol (FC) pulpotomy.

Method: Seventy first and second primary mandibular molars of children were chosen on patients who required minimum two pulpotomies in either arch or same arch. After the standardized technique of Pulpotomy with MTA and Formocresol, all molars were treated with a thick mix of Zinc oxide Eugenol cement into the coronal pulp chamber followed by preformed stainless steel crown. The children were followed up for clinical and radio graphical examination after 6, 12 and 24 month for Pain, Swelling, Sinus/fistula, Periapical changes, Furcation radiolucency and internal resorption.

Results: MTA represents 97% clinical success rate in comparison to Formocresol with 85% success. Radiographically also MTA showed more promising results with 88.6% success in comparison to Formocresol with 54.3%.

Conclusions: Thus, MTA pulpotomy has emerged as an easier line of treatment to save the premature loss of primary teeth due to caries or trauma.


Keywords

MTA, Formocresol, Pulpotomy, children


Cite and Share

Airen P,Shigli A,Airen B. Comparative Evaluation of Formocresol and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate in Pulpotomized Primary Molars - 2 Year Follow Up. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012. 37(2);143-147.

References

1. Holan,Eidelmann, Fuks. Long term Evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using MTA and Formocresol. Pediat Denti; 27:2. 2005

2. Schwartz Rs, Mauger M, Clement Dj, William A. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate: A New Material For Endodontics. J Am Dent Assn; 130:967-975. 1999.

3. Waterhouse PJ, Formocresol And Alternative Primary Molar Pulpotomy Medicaments: A Review. Endod Dent Traumato; 11:157-162. 1995.

4. Castellucci Arnold. The Use Of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate In Clinical And Surgical Endodontics. Dent Today; 74-80. 2003.

5. Eidelman E, Dr.Odont, Holan G, Fuks Ab. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Vs. Formocresol In Pulpotomized Primary Molars: A Preliminary Report. Pediat Dent; 23:15-18. 2001.

6. Agamyv HA, Bakry NS, Mounir , Avery ,Comparison Of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate And Formocresol As Pulp Capping Agents In Pulpotomized Primary Teeth. Pediat Dent; 26:302-309. 2004.

7. Subramaniam P, Hedge S et al ,Mineral Trioxide aggregate as pulp capping agent for primary teeth pulpotomy :2 year follow up study. J Clin Ped Dent; 33:2. 2009.

8. H. Neamatollahi ,A. Tajik. Comparison of clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomy in primary molars using Formocresol, Ferric Sulfate and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) . J Dent.; 3: 1. 2006.

9. Smith Nl, Seale NS, Nunn ME. Ferric Sulfate Pulpotomy In Primary Molars: A Retrospective Study. Pediat Dent; 22:192-199. 2000.

10. Maroto M, Barberia E, Planells P, Vera V. Treatment Of A Non-Vital Immature Incisor With Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (Mta). Dent Traumatol; 19:165-169. 2003.

11. Lewis BB, Chestner SB. Formaldehyde In Dentistry: A Review Of Muta-genic And Carcinogenic Potential. J Am Dent Assn ; 103 : 429-434. 1981.

12. Torabinejad M, Chivian N. Clinical Applications Of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate. J Endodont; 25(3):197-205. 1999.

13. Economides N, Pantelidou O, Kokkas A, Tziafas D. Short Term Periradicular Tissue Response To Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (Mta) As Root End Filling Material. Inter Endodont J; 36:44-48. 2003.


Submission Turnaround Time

Top