International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Chitosan and Ferric Sulphate as Pulpotomy Agents in Primary Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Shirisha Guguloth, J Sharada Reddy, Tarasingh Patloth, Konda Suhasini, Hema Chandrika Ingua, Hasanuddin Shaik

Keywords : Chitosan, Ferric sulphate, Primary teeth, Pulpotomy

Citation Information : Guguloth S, Sharada Reddy J, Patloth T, Suhasini K, Ingua HC, Shaik H. Evaluation of Chitosan and Ferric Sulphate as Pulpotomy Agents in Primary Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (2):223-226.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2514

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 12-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Introduction: Preservation of healthy pulp tissue is detrimental for the function and vitality of carious primary teeth. Several hemostatic agents used for pulpotomy in primary teeth showed adverse effects on viable surrounding structures. Aims: To assess the clinical and radiographic success of chitosan (CH) pulpotomy in primary molars and to compare it with ferric sulphate (FS). Materials and methods: A total of 40 carious lower primary second molars in 5–9 years children are selected for conventional pulpotomy technique. Over radicular stumps, FS is placed for 15 seconds in the control group, and CH for 4–5 minutes in the study group, followed by intermediate restoration (IRM). Intraoral periapical radiographs were taken immediately after 1 week and after 3rd and 6th months. The clinical and radiographic success rate is assessed and statistically analyzed. Results: Chitosan (CH) showed a 65% radiographical and 100% clinical success rate, and FS showed 55 and 95%, respectively. Conclusion: Chitosan (CH) showed better results than FS as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth.

  1. Ruemping DR, Morton TH Jr, Anderson MW, et al. Electrosurgical pulpotomy in primates–a comparison with formocresol pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent 1983;5(1):14–18.
  2. Loh A, O' Hoy P, Tran X, et al. Evidence-based assessment: evaluation of the formocresol versus ferric sulfate primary molar. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(5):401–409.
  3. Vargas KG, Packham B. Radiographic success of ferric sulfate and formocresol pulpotomies in relation to early exfoliation. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(3):233–237.
  4. Goy RC, Britto DD, Odilio B, et al. A review of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan. POLIMEROS 2009;19:241–247. DOI: 10.1590/S0104-14282009000300013
  5. Pogorielov MV, Sikora VZ. Chitosan as a hemostatic agent: current state. Eur J Med 2015;2(1):24–33. DOI: 10.13187/ejm.s.b.2015.2.24
  6. Fan W, Yan W, Xu Z, et al. Erythrocytes load of low molecular weight chitosan nanoparticles as a potential vascular drug delivery system. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2012;95:258–265. DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.03.006
  7. Wang XH, Li DP, Wang WJ, et al. Crosslinked collagen/chitosan matrix for artificial livers. Biomaterials 2003;24(19):3213–3220. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00170-4
  8. Shen EC, Chou TC, Gau Ch, et al. Releasing growth factors from activated human platelets after chitosan stimulation: a possible bio-material for platelet-rich plasma preparation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(5):572–578. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01241.x
  9. Bandi M, Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S, et al. Clinical applications of ferric sulfate in dentistry: A narrative review. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:278–281.
  10. Sheller B, Morton TH Jr. Electrosurgical pulpotomy study: A pilot study in humans. J Conserv Dent 1987;13:69–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80158-9
  11. Jian jian S, Li-hua GE, Xiao-yong, et al. Experimental study of chitosan on vital pulpotomy in primary teeth. Beijing J of Stomatology. 2011-04.
  12. Havale R, Anegundi RT, Indushekar K, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpotomies in primary molars with formocresol, glutaraldehyde and ferric sulphate. Oral Health Dent Manag 2013;12(1):24–31.
  13. Farrokh Gisoure E. Comparison of three pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a randomised clinical trial. Iran Endod J 2011;6(1):11–14.
  14. Goyal P, Pandit IK, Gugnani N, et al. Clinical and radiographic comparison of various medicaments used for pulpotomy in primary molars: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Dent 2016;10(3)315–320. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184144
  15. Odabaş ME, Cinar C, Tulunoğlu O, et al. A new haemostatic agent's effect on the success of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(7):529–534.
  16. Smith NL, Seale NS, Nunn ME, et al. Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(3):192–199.
  17. 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
  18. Yadav P, Indushekar K, Saraf B, et al. Comparative evaluation of Ferric Sulfate, Electrosurgical and Diode Laser on human primary molars pulpotomy: an ”in-vivo” study. Laser Ther 2014;23(1):41–47. DOI: 10.5978/islsm.14-OR-05
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.