International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Fate of Pulpotomized Teeth in Pediatric Patients: A 3-year Case Series in a Malaysian Dental Teaching Hospital

Sarliza Y Sanusi, Siti A Jamaludin, Mohd Z Sinor, Mohd F Khamis

Keywords : Ferric sulfate, Formocresol, Primary molar, Pulpotomy, Success rate

Citation Information : Sanusi SY, Jamaludin SA, Sinor MZ, Khamis MF. Fate of Pulpotomized Teeth in Pediatric Patients: A 3-year Case Series in a Malaysian Dental Teaching Hospital. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (1):79-84.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1712

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: This 3-year retrospective case series evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcome of ferric sulfate and formocresol pulpotomy in primary molar teeth in a dental teaching hospital in Malaysia. Materials and methods: Clinical and radiographic records of all pediatric patients who had pulpotomy of primary molar teeth between July 2005 and October 2008 were evaluated. A total of 55 pulpotomized primary molars were observed. Clinical assessments were carried out during the second visit to assess the presence of sinus tract, gingival swelling, excessive tooth mobility, tenderness to percussion, and abnormal exfoliation of the treated teeth. Periapical radiographs were reviewed for evidence of pathologic root resorption, radicular and/or periapical radiolucency, and abnormal pulp canal calcification. Treatments were regarded as failure in the presence of one or more of the above clinical and/or radiographic signs and symptoms. Results: Of 55 pulpotomized teeth, 26 (47.3%) remained free from any clinical signs and symptoms and 48 (87.3%) showed no pathological radiographic findings. The clinical success rates of ferric sulfate and formocresol pulpotomy were 44.4% and 60.0%, respectively, whereas the radiographic success rates of ferric sulfate and formocresol pulpotomy were 86.7% and 90.0%, respectively. Although teeth treated with formocresol had higher both clinical and radiographic success rates compared with those treated with ferric sulfate, it was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The clinical success rates of pulpotomy were lower compared with radiographic success rates. Ferric sulfate is an alternative to formocresol; however, the use of both agents in the dental undergraduate teaching at Universiti Sains Malaysia can still be recommended. Clinical significance: Formocresol and ferric sulfate are advocated as pulpotomy agents in primary molar teeth since both agents showed comparable clinical and radiographic success rates.

PDF Share
  1. Fuks AB. Current concepts in vital primary pulp therapy. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002;3(3):115–120.
  2. Fuks AB. Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and treatment perspectives. Pediatr Dent 2008;30:211–219. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.031.
  3. Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, et al. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: long-term follow up. Pediatr Dent 1997;19(5):327–330.
  4. Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Long-term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(2):129–136.
  5. Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, et al. Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques–randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2005;84(12):1144–1148. DOI: 10.1177/154405910508401210.
  6. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod 2008;34(8):950–955. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.05.009.
  7. Avram DC, Pulver F. Pulpotomy medicaments for vital primary teeth. Surveys to determine use and attitudes in pediatric dental practice and in dental schools throughout the world. ASDC J Dent Child 1989;56(6):426–434.
  8. Hunter ML, Hunter B. Vital pulpotomy in the primary dentition: attitudes and practices of specialists in Paediatric Dentistry practising in the United Kingdom. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13(4):246–250. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00468.x.
  9. Walker LA, Sanders BJ, Jones JE, et al. Current trends in pulp therapy: a survey analyzing pulpotomy techniques taught in pediatric dental residency programs. J Dent Child (Chic) 2013;80(1):31–35.
  10. Dunston B, Coll JA. A survey of primary tooth pulp therapy as taught in US dental schools and practiced by diplomates of the American board of pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2008;30(1):42–48.
  11. Ni Chaollai A, Monteiro J, Duggal MS. The teaching of management of the pulp in primary molars in Europe: a preliminary investigation in Ireland and the UK. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10(2):98–103. DOI: 10.1007/BF03321609.
  12. Myers DR, Shoaf HK, Dirksen TR, et al. Distribution of 14C-formaldehyde after pulpotomy with formocresol. J Am Dent Assoc 1978;96(5):805–813. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1978.0187.
  13. Myers DR, Pashley DH, Whitford GM, et al. The acute toxicity of high doses of systemically administered formocresol in dogs. Pediatr Dent 1981;3(1):37–41.
  14. Friedberg BH, Gartner LP. Embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of formocresol on developing chick embryos. J Endod 1990;16(9):434–437. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81886-8.
  15. Kahl J, Easton J, Johnson G, et al. Formocresol blood levels in children receiving dental treatment under general anesthesia. Pediatr Dent 2008;30(5):393–399.
  16. Milnes AR. Is formocresol obsolete? A fresh look at the evidence concerning safety issues. Pediatr Dent 2008;30(3):237–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.03.008.
  17. Swenberg JA, Kerns WD, Mitchell RI, et al. Induction of squamous-cell carcinomas of the rat nasal cavity by inhalation exposure to formaldehyde vapor. Cancer Res 1980;40(9):3398–3402.
  18. Kerns WD, Pavkov KL, Donofrio DJ, et al. Carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in rats and mice after long-term inhalation exposure. Cancer Res 1983;43(9):4382–4392.
  19. Fei AL, Udin RD, Johnson R. A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1991;13(6):327–332.
  20. Ibricevic H, Al-Jame Q. Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow-up. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000;24(4):269–272. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.24.4.d7u6405nw1132705.
  21. Ibricevic H, Al-Jame Q. Ferric sulphate and formocresol in pulpotomy of primary molars: long term follow-up study. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2003;4(1):28–32.
  22. Peng L, Ye L, Guo X, et al. Evaluation of formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2007;40(10):751–757. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01288.x.
  23. Stringhini Junior E, Vitcel ME, Oliveira LB. Evidence of pulpotomy in primary teeth comparing MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, and electrosurgery with formocresol. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015;16(4):303–312. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-015-0174-z.
  24. Erdem AP, Guven Y, Balli B, et al. Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol pulpotomies: a 24-month study. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(2):165–170.
  25. Bergoli AD, Primosch RE, de Araujo FB, et al. Pulp therapy in primary teeth - profile of teaching in Brazilian dental schools. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35(2):191–195. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.2.d0m322604p81p1t2.
  26. Burnett S, Walker J. Comparison of ferric sulfate, formocresol, and a combination of ferric sulfate/formocresol in primary tooth vital pulpotomies: a retrospective radiographic survey. ASDC J Dent Child 2002;69((1 ):44–48.
  27. Markovic D, Zivojinovic V, Vucetic M. Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2005;6(3):133–138.
  28. Farsi DJ, El-Khodary HM, Farsi NM, et al. Sodium hypochlorite versus formocresol and ferric sulfate pulpotomies in primary molars: 18-month follow-up. Pediatr Dent 2015;37(7):535–540.
  29. Fuks AB. Pulp therapy for the primary and young permanent dentitions. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44(3):571–596.
  30. Farooq NS, Coll JA, Kuwabara A, et al. Success rates of formocresol pulpotomy and indirect pulp therapy in the treatment of deep dentinal caries in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(4):278–286.
  31. Guelmann M, McIlwain MF, Primosch RE. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin-based materials. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(1):24–27.
  32. Sonmez D, Duruturk L. Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns. Br Dent J 2010;208(9):E18. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.446.
  33. Guelmann M, Fair J, Turner C, et al. The success of emergency pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(3):217–220.
  34. Guelmann M, Fair J, Bimstein E. Permanent versus temporary restorations after emergency pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(6):478–481.
  35. Vargas KG, Packham B. Radiographic success of ferric sulfate and formocresol pulpotomies in relation to early exfoliation. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(3):233–237.
  36. Kurji ZA, Sigal MJ, Andrews P, et al. A retrospective study of a modified 1-minute formocresol pulpotomy technique part 2: effect on exfoliation times and successors. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(2):139–143.
  37. Kurji ZA, Sigal MJ, Andrews P, et al. A retrospective study of a modified 1-minute formocresol pulpotomy technique part 1: clinical and radiographic findings. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(2):131–138.
  38. Smith NL, Seale NS, Nunn ME. Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(3):192–199.
  39. Hume WR, Massey WL. Keeping the pulp alive: the pharmacology and toxicology of agents applied to dentine. Aust Dent J 1990;35(1):32–37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1990.tb03024.x.
  40. Markowitz K, Moynihan M, Liu M, et al. Biologic properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol. A clinically oriented review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;73(6):729–737. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(92)90020-Q.
  41. Watts A, Paterson RC. Pulp-capping studies with analar calcium hydroxide and zinc oxide-eugenol. Int Endod J 1987;20:169–176. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1987.tb00610.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.