Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2011; 05(04): 415-422
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698914
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Evaluation of the Restoration Success of Endodontic Therapy of the Primary Molars

Zuhal Kirzioglu
a   Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Isparta, Turkey.
,
Ozge Erken Gungor
b   Akdeniz University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Antalya, Turkey.
,
Z Zahit Ciftci
c   Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Isparta, Turkey.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomized primary molar teeth restored with a compomer material with using United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Methods: In 173 primary molars of 156 child patients, aged within 4-9 years (mean age: 6.1±1.4 years), conventional pulpotomy treatment were performed. The teeth treated using calcium hydroxide, formocresol or ferric sulphate. After pulpotomy procedure, teeth were restored with compomer material. The teeth were evaluated as clinically and radiographically during a period of 12-24 months. Both of success of pulpotomy treatment and also restorative material (compomer material) were evaluated during follow-up period. The data were assessed with chi-square test. Results: At the end of the first year, 45% of initial treated teeth were checked, but only 18% were checked at the end of the second year. The first year success rates in the groups treated with CH, FC, and FS were 87.5%, 95%, and 79%, respectively, and, as the number of controllable patients was lower, the success rates on available teeth were determined to be 88.3% and 80%, respectively, according to the materials at the end of the second year. Restorations having been made, they were analyzed in accordance with USPHS criteria. Conclusions: At the end of the first year, 67.5% of compomer restorations were detected to be original and healthy and at the end of the second year, 57% were deemed healthy. No statistically significant relationships were found between marginal adaptation, secondary caries and pulpotomy success (chi-square test, P>.05). Among the three groups, there is no significant difference in terms of success. The least successful age group was defined as 4-6 years. (Eur J Dent 2011;5:415-422)

Key words:

Primary molar - Endodontic therapy - Success rate - Pulpotomy
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Salako N, Joseph B, Ritwik P, Salonen J, John P, Junaid TA. Comparison of bioactive glass, mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol as pulpotomy agents in rat molar. Dent Traumatol 2003;19:314-320.
  • 2 Ingle JI, Bakland LK. Endodontics. 5th edition. Canada: BC Decker Inc. 2002.
  • 3 Cohen ST, Burns R. Patways of the pulp. 6th edition. St.Louis: Mosby 1994.
  • 4 Menezes R, Bramante CM, Letra A, Carvalho VG, Garcia RB. Histologic evaluation of pulpotomies in dog using two types of mineral trioxide aggregate and regular and white Portland cements as wound dressings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:376-379.
  • 5 Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A Comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term followup. J Endod 2008;34:950-955.
  • 6 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 2006;16:117-127.
  • 7 Pinkham JR. Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence. 3rd edition. USA: W.B. Saunders Company, 1999.
  • 8 Bahrololoomi Z, Moeintaghavi A, Emtiazi M, Hosseini G. Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molars after formocresol and electrosurgical pulpotomy: a randomized clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res 2008;19:219-223.
  • 9 Zarzar PA, Rosenblatt A, Takahashi CS, Takeuchi PL, Costa Junior LA. Formocresol mutagenicity following primary tooth pulp therapy: an in vivo study. J Dent 2003;31:479- 485.
  • 10 Saltzman B, Sigal M, Clokie C, Rukavina J, Titley K, Kulkarni GV. Assessment of a novel alternative to conventional formocresol-zinc oxide eugenol pulpotomy for the treatment of pulpally involved human primary teeth: diode laser-mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15:437-447.
  • 11 Naik S, Hegde AM. Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy agent in primary molars: An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23:13-16.
  • 12 Aeinehchi M, Eslami B, Ghanbariha M, Saffar AS. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and calcium hydroxide as pulpcapping agents in human teeth: a preliminary report. Int Endod J 2003;36:225-231.
  • 13 Moretti AB, Oliveira TM, Sakai VT, Santos CF, Machado MA, Abdo RC. Mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy of a primary second molar in a patient with agenesis of the permanent successor. Int Endod J 2007;40:738-745.
  • 14 Camilleri J, Pitt Ford TR. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a review of the constituents and biological properties of the material. Int Endod J 2006;39:747-754.
  • 15 Markovic D, Zivojinovic V, Vucetic M. Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2005;6:133-138.
  • 16 Eyüboğlu Ö. Clinic, radiographic and histological evaluation of primary teeth pulpotomies using different pulpotomy materials. Atatürk University, Institute of Health Science, 2007.
  • 17 Dean JA, Mack RB, Fulkerson BT, Sanders BJ. Comparison of electrosurgical and formocresol pulpotomy procedures in children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:177-182.
  • 18 Waterhouse PJ, Nunn JH, Whitworth JM, Soames JV. Primary molar pulp therapy--histological evaluation of failure. Int J Paediatr Dent 2000;10:313-321.
  • 19 Sonmez D, Duruturk 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 2008;106:e94-98.
  • 20 Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18 Suppl 1:20-28.
  • 21 Kramer N, Frankenberger R. Compomers in restorative therapy of children: a literature review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17:2-9.
  • 22 Cehreli ZC, Cetinguc A, Cengiz SB, Altay AN. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results. Am J Dent 2006;19:262-266.
  • 23 Guelmann M, Bookmyer KL, Villalta P, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004;71:209-211.
  • 24 Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Borges AF, Silva TN, Puppin-Rontani RM, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006;34:381-388.
  • 25 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.
  • 26 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.
  • 27 Guelmann M, Fair J, Turner C, Courts FJ. The success of emergency pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:217-220.
  • 28 Gruythuysen RJ, Weerheijm KL. Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy with a light-cured cavity-sealing material after two years. ASDC J Dent Child 1997;64:251-253.
  • 29 Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J 2008;53:325-331.
  • 30 Boeve C, Dermaut L. Formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars: a long term radiographic evaluation. J Dent Child 1982;49:191-196.
  • 31 Sarı Ş. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the effects of rootcanal resorption on endodontic procedures in primary teeth. Ankara University, Institute of Health Science, 1997.
  • 32 Sari S, Aras S, Gunhan O. The effect of physiological root resorption on repair potential of primary tooth pulp. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999;23:227-233.
  • 33 Sari S, Aras S, Gunhan O. The effect of physiological root resorption on the histological structure of primary tooth pulp. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999;23:221-225.
  • 34 Guelmann M, McIlwain MF, Primosch RE. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin-based materials. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:24-27.
  • 35 Fuks AB, Bimstein E. Clinical evaluation of diluted formocresol pulpotomies in primary teeth of school children. Pediatr Dent 1981;3:321-324.
  • 36 Vargas KG, Packham B. Radiographic success of ferric sulfate and formocresol pulpotomies in relation to early exfoliation. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:233-237.
  • 37 Waterhouse PJ, Nunn JH, Whitworth JM. An investigation of the relative efficacy of Buckley's Formocresol and calcium hydroxide in primary molar vital pulp therapy. Br Dent J 2000;188:32-36.
  • 38 Ranly DM, Godoy FG. Current and potential pulp therapies for primary and young permanent teeth. J Dent 2000;28:153-161.
  • 39 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.
  • 40 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.
  • 41 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.
  • 42 Moretti AB, Sakai VT, Oliveira TM, Fornetti AP, Santos CF, Machado MA, Abdo RC. The effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium hydroxide and formocresol for pulpotomies in primary teeth. Int Endod J 2008;41:547-555.
  • 43 Waterhouse PJ. Formocresol and alternative primary molar pulpotomy medicaments: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1995;11:157-162.