International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE S2 ( September, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Radiographic Success of Pulpectomy Done with and without Dental Operating Microscope in Pediatric Patients: An In Vivo Study

Gyanendra Kumar, Ferah Rehman

Keywords : Clinical and radiographic success, Endodontic therapy, Manual technique, Primary dentition, Primary teeth, Pulpectomy, Rotary technique

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2641

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-11-2023

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


Aim: To assess the clinical and radiographic success of conventional pulpectomy and pulpectomy done under an endodontic microscope over a period of 12 months. Materials and methods: The study was conducted as a single-blinded, parallel-group prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trial. The enrollment of the study involved the assessment of 258 deciduous molars for eligibility as per the inclusion criteria. A total of 104 teeth were allocated to each group, that is, group I (conventional pulpectomy) and group II (pulpectomy under microscope). However, due to unavoidable circumstances during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 98 and 90 teeth were treated in each group, respectively. Pulpectomy in both groups was done using standard protocol except for the use of an endodontic microscope in group II. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed by an independent blinded observer and analyzed using appropriate statistical tests. Results: The clinical success at 6 months is 95.7 and 96.5%, and at 12 months is 96.6 and 97.7% in groups I and II, respectively. The radiographic success at 6 months is 93.5 and 95.4%, and at 12 months is 95.5 and 98.8% in groups I and II, respectively. The overall success rates of both groups with statistically no significant differences. Conclusion: The present study concludes comparable results are achieved using an endodontic microscope to conventional pulpectomy without magnification.

  1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guidelines on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth, Reference manual 2006-2007. Pediatr Dent 2007;28:144–148.
  2. Wang Y, Chang H, Kuo C, et al. A study on the root canal morphology of primary molars by high-resolution computed tomography. J Dent Sci 2013;8(3):321–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2013.04.002
  3. Apotheker H, Jako GJ. A microscope for use in dentistry. J Microsurg 1981;3(1):7–10. DOI: 10.1002/micr.1920030104
  4. Rehman F, Kumar G, Goswami M. Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding the use of dental operating microscope in pediatric dentistry in India: An online survey. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2021;11(1):22–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.11.003
  5. Sayed A, Ranna V, Padawe D, et al. Effect of the video output of the dental operating microscope on anxiety levels in a pediatric population during restorative procedures. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34(1):60–64. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.175516
  6. Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, et al. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006;16(Suppl 1):15–23.
  7. Pramila R, Muthu MS, Deepa G, et al. Pulpectomies in primary mandibular molars: a comparison of outcomes using three root filling materials. Int Endod J 2016;49(5):413–421. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12478
  8. Trairatvorakul C, Chunlasikaiwan S. Success of pulpectomy with zinc oxide-eugenol vs calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste in primary molars: a clinical study. Pediatr Dent 2008;30:303–308.
  9. Nakornchai S, Banditsing P, Visetratana N. Clinical evaluation of 3Mix and Vitapex as treatment options for pulpally involved primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2010;20(3):214–221. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01044.x
  10. Verma N, Sangwan P, Tewari S, et al. Effect of different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on outcome of primary root canal treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Endod 2019;45(4):357–363. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.01.003
  11. Dou G, Wang D, Zhang S, et al. A retrospective study on the long-term outcomes of pulpectomy and influencing factors in primary teeth. J Dent Sci 2022;17(2):771–779. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.10.007
  12. Coll JA, Sadrian R. Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. Pediatr Dent 1996;18(1):57–63.
  13. Chen Y, Li H, Li M, et al. Analysis of survival and factors associated with failure of primary tooth pulpectomies performed under general anaesthesia in children from South China. Int J Paediatr Dent 2020;30(2):225–233. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12589
  14. Morabito A, Defabianis P. A SEM investigation on pulpal-periodontal connections in primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child. 1992;59:53–57.
  15. Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, et al. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 1990;16(10):498–504. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4
  16. Samaranayake LP, Reid J, Evans D. The efficacy of rubber dam isolation in reducing atmospheric bacterial contamination. ASDC J Dent Child 1989;56(6):442–444.
  17. Angwaravong O, Panitvisai P. Accuracy of an electronic apex locator in primary teeth with root resorption. Int Endod J 2009;42(2):115–121. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01476.x
  18. Ahmed HM. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endod J 2013;46(11):1011–1022. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12134
  19. Manchanda S, Sardana D, Yiu CKY. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth. Int Endod J 2020;53(3):333–353. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13233
  20. Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, et al. Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32(4):295–298. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.4.l57l36355u606576
  21. Subramaniam P, Gilhotra K. Endoflas, zinc oxide eugenol and metapex as root canal filling materials in primary molars–a comparative clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35(4):365–369. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.4.1377v06621143233
  22. Gupta S, Das G. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of zinc oxide eugenol and metapex in root canal treatment of primary teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(3):222–228. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.85829
  23. Ramar K, Mungara J. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpectomies using three root canal filling materials: an in-vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010;28(1):25–29. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.60481
  24. Nurko C, Garcia-Godoy F. Evaluation of a calcium hydroxide iodoform paste (vitapex) in root canal therapy for primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999;23(4):289–294.
  25. Mortazavi M, Mesbahi M. Comparison of zinc oxide and eugenol, and Vitapex for root canal treatment of necrotic primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 2004;14(6):417–424. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2004.00544.x
  26. Ozalp N, Saroğlu I, Sönmez H. Evaluation of various root canal filling materials in primary molar pulpectomies: an in vivo study. Am J Dent 2005;18(6):347–350.
  27. Sirimaharaj V, S Sinsoontorn. Evaluation of effectiveness of vitapex in root canal treatment of primary teeth: a retrospective study. Chiang Mai Dent J 2008;29
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.