International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Laser Pulpotomy—An Effective Alternative to Conventional Techniques: A 12 Months Clinicoradiographic Study

Garima Gupta

Keywords : Electrosurgery, Ferric sulfate, Laser, Pulpotomy

Citation Information : Gupta G. Laser Pulpotomy—An Effective Alternative to Conventional Techniques: A 12 Months Clinicoradiographic Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 8 (1):18-21.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1277

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-04-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: Vital pulpotomy is a single-stage procedure of surgical amputation of the coronal portion of exposed vital pulp, usually as a means of preserving the vitality and function of the remaining radicular portion. Aims and objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates for ferric sulfate (FS), electrosurgery (ES) and laser pulpotomy in human primary molars. Materials and methods: In a randomized clinical trial, 30 primary molars indicated for pulpotomy in children aged 4 to 10 years were treated using either a FS (10 teeth), ES technique (10 teeth) and laser (10 teeth). Following the pulpotomy, the teeth were evaluated for clinical and radiographic success at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months on the basis of the presence of pain, sinus, mobility, internal and external resorption, periapical radiolucency, calcification in the canal and bone loss. Statistical analysis: The data were assessed with Chi-square test. Results: After 12 months of follow-up, both clinical and radiographic success rates were 100% in the laser group but only 80% in both ES and FS groups. There was statistically significant difference between the success rates of three groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Laser pulpotomy showed better clinical as well as radiographical results than ES and FS pulpotomy. Laser pulpotomy was also found superior in terms of operating time, patient cooperation, ease of use and pain. Although results of the study showed the failure rates for electrosurgical pulpotomy to be equal to those for FS pulpotomy, electrosurgical pulpotomy being a nonpharmacological technique considered more favorable. Further studies using larger sample size and longer evaluation periods are suggested. How to cite this article: Gupta G, Rana V, Srivastava N, Chandna P. Laser Pulpotomy—An Effective Alternative to Conventional Techniques: A 12 Months Clinicoradiographic Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(1):18-21.


PDF Share
  1. King SR, McWhorter AG, Seale NS. Concentration of formocresol used by pediatric dentists in primary tooth pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(2):157-159.
  2. Sweet CA. Procedure for treatment of exposed and pulpless deciduous teeth. J Am Dent Association 1930;17:1150-1153.
  3. 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(10):751-757.
  4. Lewis B. Formaldehyde in dentistry: a review for the millennium. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22(2):167-177.
  5. 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.
  6. Yamasaki M, Nakamura H, Kameyama Y. Irritating effect of formocresol after pulpectomy in vivo. Int Endod J 1994;27(5): 245-251.
  7. Mack RB, Dean JA. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: a retrospective human study. ASDC J Dent Child 1993;60(2):107-114.
  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. Ind J Dent Res 2008;19(3):219-223.
  9. Neamatollahi H, Tajik A. Comparison of clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomy in primary molars using formocresol, ferric sulfate and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). J Dent 2006;3(1):6-14.
  10. Gisoure EF. Comparison of three pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a randomised clinical trial. Iran Endod J 2011 Winter;6(1):11-14.
  11. Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, Hollweck R, Crispin A, Hickel R. Effectiveness of four pulpotomy techniquesrandomized controlled trial. J Dent Res 2005;84(12):1144-1148.
  12. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term followup. J Endod 2008 Aug;34(8):950-955.
  13. Shulman ER, McIver FT, Burkes EJ Jr. Comparison of electrosurgery and formocresol as pulpotomy techniques in monkey primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1987 Sep;9(3):189-194.
  14. Dean JA, Mack RB, Fulkerson BT, Sanders BJ. Comparison of electrosurgical and formocresol pulpotomy procedures in children. Int J Pediatr Dent 2002 May;12(3):177-182.
  15. El-Meligy OAS, Mahmoud SH. A comparative study of electrofulguration and formocresol pulpotomy techniques in primary teeth. Int J Surg Res Prac 2014;1(2):1-4.
  16. Samad F, Jaiswal JN, Tripathi A, Goyal S. Evaluation of success rate of chemical vs electrosurgical pulpotomy technique in primary molars: an in vivo study. J Orofac Health Sci 2012; 3(3):18-25.
  17. Mareddy A, Mallikarjun SB, Shetty PV, Rao VVN, Chandru TP. Histological evaluation of diode laser pulpotomy in dogs. J Oral Laser Applications 2010;10(1):7-16.
  18. Kaushik N, Srivastavax N, Kaushik M, Gaurav V. Efficacy of different techniques of gingival depigmentation: a comparative evaluation with case report. Int J Laser Dent 2013;3(2):68-72.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.