Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 223–228 | Cite as

Two-year outcomes of electrosurgery and calcium-enriched mixture pulpotomy in primary teeth: a randomised clinical trial

  • F. Khorakian
  • F. Mazhari
  • S. Asgary
  • M. Sahebnasagh
  • A. Alizadeh Kaseb
  • T. Movahhed
  • A. R. Sarraf ShiraziEmail author
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this prospective split-mouth, randomised clinical trial was to assess the clinical and radiographic success rate of pulpotomy in primary molars using calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement or placement of zinc oxide eugenol after electrosurgery (ES/ZOE).

Methods

Pulpotomy was performed for 102 primary second molars in 51 children aged between 4 and 6 years. Considering a split-mouth design, for each patient the right and left second primary molars randomly underwent pulpotomy using CEM cement or ES/ZOE. All teeth were restored using preformed metal crowns. Following pulpotomy procedure, teeth were blindly evaluated for clinical and radiographic success after 6, 12 and 24 months. McNemar test and SPSS 16 software were used for the statistical analysis.

Results

After 24 months, clinical success rates were 100 % in both groups, however, radiographic success rates of ES/ZOE and CEM were calculated as 95.2 and 90 %, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.625). The most common radiographic sign of failure was internal resorption.

Conclusion

The results of this investigation show that the treatment success rate with CEM cement was similar to the electrosurgical pulpotomy.

Keywords

Pulpotomy Primary tooth Molar Electrosurgery Calcium-enriched mixture CEM cement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Iran National Science Foundation as well as Mashhad University of Medical Sciences and the authors would like to thank Dr. Hosseini Zarch, Dr. Esmaeli, Dr. Nik, Mrs. Etezad, Mr. Chavoshan and Mr. Zarif for their assistance in this project. The results presented in this study have been taken from a postgraduate thesis (no:417).

References

  1. Asgary S, Kamrani FA. Antibacterial effect of five different root canal sealing material. J Oral Sci. 2008;50:469–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asgary S, Shahabi S, Jafarzadeh T, Amini S, Kheirieh S. The properties of a new endodontic material. J Endod. 2008a;34:990–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Parirokh M. Sealing ability of a novel endodontic cement as a root-end filling material. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008b;87:706–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Parirokh M, et al. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate’s composition with Portland cements and a new endodontic cement. J Endod. 2009;35:243–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Ehsani S. Periradicular regeneration after endodontic surgery with calcium-enriched mixture cement in dogs. J Endod. 2010;36:837–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Ghoddusi J, Yazdani S. One-year results of vital pulp therapy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis: an ongoing multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2013a;17:431–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Ghoddusi J. Two-year results of vital pulp therapy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis: an ongoing multicenter randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2013b. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1003-6.
  8. Asgary S, Nazarian H, Khojasteh A,Shokouhinejad N. Gene expression and cytokine release during odontogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells induced by two endodontic biomaterials. J Endod. In press.Google Scholar
  9. Bahrololoomi Z, Moeintaghavi A, Emtiazi M, Hosseini G. Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molars after formocresol and electrosurgical pulpotomy: a randomized clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res. 2008;19:219–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dean JA, Mack RB, Fulkerson BT, Sanders BJ. Comparison of electrosurgical and formocresol pulpotomy procedures in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2002;12:177–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ding YJ, Song H, Liu JH, Wang GH. Brain injury due to anaphylactic shock as a result of formocresol used during root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2013;46:999–1005.Google Scholar
  12. El-Meligy O, Abdalla M, El-Baraway S, El-Tekya M, Dean JA. Histological evaluation of electrosurgery and formocresol pulpotomy techniques in primary teeth in dogs. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2001;26:81–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fishman SA, Udin RD, Good DL, Rodef F. Success of electrofulguration pulpotomies covered by zinc oxide and eugenol or calcium hydroxide: a clinical study. Pediatr Dent. 1996;18:385–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuks AB. Current concepts in vital primary pulp therapy. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2002;3:115–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuks AB. Vital pulp therapy with new materials for primary teeth: new directions and Treatment perspectives. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:211–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haghgoo R, Arfa S, Asgary S. Microleakage of CEM cement and ProRoot MTA as furcal perforation repair materials in primary teeth. Iran Endod J. 2013;8:187–90.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jabbarifar SE, Khademi AA, Ghasemi D. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy versus mineral trioxide aggregate in human primary molar tooth. J Res Med Sci. 2004;6:304–7.Google Scholar
  18. Kangarlou A, Sofiabadi S, Yadegari Z, Asgary S. Antifungal effect of calcium enriched mixture (CEM) cement against Candida albicans. Iran Endod J. 2009;4:101–5.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. King SR, McWhorter AG, Seale NS. Concentration of formocresol used by pediatrics in primary tooth pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:157–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lesaffre E, Garcia Zattera MJ, et al. Dentistry ISo. Reported methodological quality of split-mouth studies. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34:756–61.Google Scholar
  21. Mack RB, Dean JA. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: a retrospective human study. ASDC J Dent Child. 1993;60:107–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Malekafzali B, Shekarchi F, Asgary S. Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy in primary molars using two endodontic biomaterials. A 2-year randomised clinical trial. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2011;12:189–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mehrdad L, Malekafzali B, Shekarchi F, Safi Y, Asgary S. Histological and CBCT evaluation of a pulpotomised primary molar using calcium enriched mixture cement. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2013;14:191–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mesbahi M, Ardakani Z. Clinical and radiographical evaluation of pulpotomy treatment for primary teeth with electrosurgery. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci. 2007;8:96–104.Google Scholar
  25. Molla Asadollah F, Vahid Golpayegani M, Alexanian S. Histologic comparison of electrosurgery and formocresol pulpotomy technique in human primary teeth. Beheshti Univ Dent J. 2000;4:347–58.Google Scholar
  26. Nematollahi H, Tajik A. Comparison of clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomy in primary molars using formocresol, ferric sulfate and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). JDT. 2006;3:6–14.Google Scholar
  27. Nematollahi H, Sahebnasagh M, Parisay I. Comparison of electrosurgical pulpotomy with zinc oxide eugenol or zinc polycarboxylate cements sub-base. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;36:133–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rivera N, Reyes E, Mazzaoui S, Moron A. Pulpal therapy for primary teeth: formocresol vs electrosurgery: a clinical study. J Dentist Child (Chic). 2003;70:71–3.Google Scholar
  29. Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, Fayle SA, Moffat MA. UK national Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry. Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16:15–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruemping DR, Morton TH Jr, Anderson MW. Electrosurgical pulpotomy in primates–a comparison with formocresol pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent. 1983;5:14–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sarraf Shirazi A, Rezaifar M, Talebi M, Mortazavi A, Safari Malekabadi K. Application of bonding system as a sub-base material following electrosurgical pulpotomy treatment in primary teeth: a novel technique. Iran J Med Hypotheses Ideas. 2009;3:1–6.Google Scholar
  32. Shabzendedar M, Mazhari F, Alami M, Talebi M. Sodium hypochlorite vs formocresol as pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars: 1-year follow-up. Pediatr Dent. 2013;35:329–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbas T. A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod. 2008;34:950–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Srinivasan V, Patchett CL, Waterhouse PJ. Is there life after Buckley’s formocresol? Part I—a narrative review of alternative interventions and materials. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16:117–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tabarci B, Parirokh M, Eghbal MJ, et al. A comparative study of dental pulp response to different pulpotomy agent in dogs. Int Endod J. 2010;43:565–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yakuschji M. Pulpotomy of primary teeth by means of electrosurgery. Shoni Shikagaku Zasshi. 1975;13:213–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Khorakian
    • 1
  • F. Mazhari
    • 2
  • S. Asgary
    • 3
  • M. Sahebnasagh
    • 4
  • A. Alizadeh Kaseb
    • 5
  • T. Movahhed
    • 1
  • A. R. Sarraf Shirazi
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Dental Research Center, School of DentistryMashhad University of Medical SciencesMashhadIran
  2. 2.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Dental Material Research Center, School of DentistryMashhad University of Medical SciencesMashhadIran
  3. 3.Iranian Center for Endodontic Research, Research Institute of Dental SciencesShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryNorth Khorasan University of Medical SciencesBojnurdIran
  5. 5.Department of Paediatrics, Subspecialty of NeonatologyMashhad University of Medical SciencesMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations