Comparison of 6 and 12 Months Clinical and Radiographic Success Rate of Pulpotomy in Primary Second Molar with Formocrcsol and Propolis
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
Department of Pediatrics, School of Dentistry, (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
10.48305/v0i0.1604
Abstract
Introduction: Formocresol has been used for the pulpotomy procedures of primary molar teeth in the past century; however, new alternatives have been introduced because of the potential carcinogenesis of formocresol. Some natural materials from the field of traditional medicine, such as propolis, have also been introduced as medicaments for vital pulp therapy procedures. This study compared the clinical and radiographic success of pulpotomy treatment in primary molars, using formocresol or propolis.
Materials and Methods: In this clinical study, pulpotomy procedures were performed on 60 mandibular second primary molar teeth in 4-7-year-old children, referring to the Department of Pedodontics, Khorasghan Faculty of Dentistry, Isfahan Azad University, with indications for pulpotomy treatment. In each patient, one tooth was randomly assigned to the formocresol pulpotomy group, and one tooth was assigned to the propolis group. The teeth underwent pulpotomy treatments with either formocresol or propolis after achieving anesthesia and removing caries, followed by restoration with a stainless steel crown. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were recorded at 6 and 12 months. Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact test using SPSS 22 (α = 0.05).
Results: The formocresol group demonstrated 100% clinical success rate at 6- and 12-month postoperative intervals. The clinical success rates of propolis were 96.7% and 100%, respectively at 6- and 12-month intervals, respectively. The 6-month radiographic success in the formocresol group was 83.8% compared to 90% in the propolis group (p value = 0.35). Radiographic success rates of formocresol and propolis were 80% and 76.7%, respectively, at 12 months (p value = 0.75).
Conclusion: The results of this study revealed no significant differences in the success rates of primary molar pulpotomy procedures between propolis and formocresol. Propolis can be used for pulpotomy procedures as a substitute for formocresol.
Key words: Formocresol, Primary molar tooth, Propolis, Pulpotomy.
Materials and Methods: In this clinical study, pulpotomy procedures were performed on 60 mandibular second primary molar teeth in 4-7-year-old children, referring to the Department of Pedodontics, Khorasghan Faculty of Dentistry, Isfahan Azad University, with indications for pulpotomy treatment. In each patient, one tooth was randomly assigned to the formocresol pulpotomy group, and one tooth was assigned to the propolis group. The teeth underwent pulpotomy treatments with either formocresol or propolis after achieving anesthesia and removing caries, followed by restoration with a stainless steel crown. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were recorded at 6 and 12 months. Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact test using SPSS 22 (α = 0.05).
Results: The formocresol group demonstrated 100% clinical success rate at 6- and 12-month postoperative intervals. The clinical success rates of propolis were 96.7% and 100%, respectively at 6- and 12-month intervals, respectively. The 6-month radiographic success in the formocresol group was 83.8% compared to 90% in the propolis group (p value = 0.35). Radiographic success rates of formocresol and propolis were 80% and 76.7%, respectively, at 12 months (p value = 0.75).
Conclusion: The results of this study revealed no significant differences in the success rates of primary molar pulpotomy procedures between propolis and formocresol. Propolis can be used for pulpotomy procedures as a substitute for formocresol.
Key words: Formocresol, Primary molar tooth, Propolis, Pulpotomy.
1. Hargreaves KM, Berman, LH. Cohen’s pathways of the pulp.11th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2016.
2. Magnusson B. Attempts to predict prognosis of pulpotomy in primary molars. Bacteriologic and histologic examination. Scand J Dent Res.1970; 78(3): 232-40.
3. Casamassimo PS. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013. p. 333-48.
4. Vargas KG, Packham B, Lowman D. Preliminary evaluation of sodium hypochlorite for pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2006; 20(6): 511-7.
5. Ozorio JE, Carvalho LF, de Oliveira DA, de Sousa-Neto MD, Perez DE. Standardized propolis extract and calcium hydroxide as pulpotomy agents in primary pig teeth. J Dent Child (Chic) 2012; 79(2): 53-8.
6. Parolia A, Kundabala M, Rao NN, Acharya SR, Agrawal P, Mohan M, et al. A comparative histological analysis of human pulp following direct pulp capping with Propolis, mineral trioxide aggregate and Dycal. Aust Dent J 2010; 55(1): 59-64.
7. Alolofi H, El-Sayed M, Taha S. Clinical and radiographical evaluation of propolis and thymus vulgaris extracts compared with formocresol pulpotomy in human primary molars. BDJ Open 2016; 2: 16005.
8. Kusum B, Rakesh K, Richa K. Clinical and radiographical evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate, Biodentine and Propolis as pulpotomy medicaments primary teeth. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40(4): 276-85.
9. Arora V, Nikhil V, Sharma N, Arora P. Bioactive dentin replacement. J Dent Med Sci 2013; 12(4): 51-7.
10. Ruby JD, Cox CF, Mitchell SC, Makhija S, Chompu-Inwai P, Jackson J. A randomized study of sodium hypochlorite versus formocresol pulpotomy in primary molar teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 2013; 23(2): 145-52.
11. Al-Mutairi MA, Bawazir OA. Sodium hypochlorite versus Formocresol in primary molars pulpotomies: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013; 14(1): 33-6.
)