Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 439–447 | Cite as

Efficacy of ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy medicament in primary molars: an evidence based approach

  • S. Nuvvula
  • M. Bandi
  • S. K. MallineniEmail author
Systematic Review
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of ferric sulphate (FS) compared to other pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through five databases (PubMed, Ovid®, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library and ProQuest) and only those papers which met the inclusion criteria were accepted. The quality of the studies used for systematic review was rated by two independent researchers based on Fuks and Papagiannoulis (Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 7:64–71, 2006) criteria and graded as A (38–42), B1 (32–37), B2 (25–31), C (≤ 24). Inter-examiner reliability was measured using Kappa statistics.

Results

A total of 1371 studies were available, of which only two studies full-text articles were included for quality assessment with an excellent inter-researcher agreement (k = 0.9). The comprehensive search revealed that, none of the 20 studies obtained grade A. Only three studies were graded as B1, 5 studies received grade B2 and 12 studies attained grade C. Only 4 prospective randomised clinical trials reported high success rate with FS compared to other materials. Remaining 14 studies revealed low success rate with FS compared to other pulpotomy medicaments.

Conclusion

There is insufficient evidence to support the application of FS as a pulpotomy medicament in primary molars in the existing English literature. Hence, properly planned randomised clinical trials with large sample size and long-term follow up are needed to support FS as an effective pulpotomy medicament compared to other traditional and new medicaments.

Keywords

Children Ferric sulphate Primary molars Pulpotomy 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no competing interest.

Supplementary material

40368_2018_375_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (553 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 552 KB)

References

  1. Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Long-term outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. Pediatr Dent. 2004;26:44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cochran MA, Miller CH, Sheldrake M. The efficacy of rubber dam as a barrier to the spread of microorganisms during dental treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 1989;119:141–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cotes O, Boj JR, Canalda C, Carreras M. Pulpal tissue reaction to formocresol vs ferric sulfate in pulpotomized rat teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1997;21:247–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dupont WD, Plummer WD Jr. Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Control Clin Trials. 1990;1:116–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durmus B, Tanboga I. In vivo evaluation of the treatment outcome of pulpotomy in primary molars using diode laser, formocresol, and ferric sulphate. Photomed Laser Surg. 2014;32:289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doyle TL, Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL. Mineral trioxide aggregate produces superior outcomes in vital primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent. 2010;32:41–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein E, Maibach HI. Monsel’s solution: history, chemistry and efficacy. Arch Dermatol. 1964;90:226–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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;33:165–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Farsi DJ, El-Khodary HM, Farsi NM, El Ashiry EA, Yagmoor MA, Alzain SM. Sodium hypochlorite versus formocresol and ferric sulfate pulpotomies in primary molars: 18-month kollow-up. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37:535–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fei AL, Udin RD, Johnson R. A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 1991;13:327–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez CC, Martinez SS, Jimeno FG, Rodriguez AIL, Mercade M. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the use of four dressing materials in pulpotomized primary molars: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2013;23:400–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer DE. Tissue management: a new solution to an old problem. Gen Dent. 1987;35:178–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuks AB. Current concepts in vital primary pulp therapy. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2002;3:115–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuks AB, Papagiannoulis L. Pulpotomy in primary teeth: review of the literature according to standardized criteria. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7:64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, Eidelman E. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: long-term follow up. Pediatr Dent. 1997;19:327–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia-Godoy F, Ranly DM. Clinical evaluation of pulpotomies with ZOE as the vehicle for glutaraldehyde. Pediatr Dent. 1987;9:144–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gisoure EF. Comparison of three pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a randomised clinical trial. Iran Endod J. 2011;6:11–4.Google Scholar
  18. 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;10:315–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guelmann M, McIlwain MF, Primosch RE. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin based materials. Pediatr Dent. 2005;27:24–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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;8:18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Havale R, Anegundi RT, Indushekar K, Sudha P. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpotomies in primary molars with formocresol, glutaraldehyde and ferric sulphate. Oral health Dent Manag. 2013;12:24–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, et al. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent. 2005;18:198–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, Hollweck R, Crispin A, Hickel R, et al. Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques--randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res. 2005;84:1144–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huth KC, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, Wolf P, et al. Long-term effectiveness of four pulpotomy techniques: 3-year randomised controlled trial. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16:1243–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ibricevic H, al-Jame Q. Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow-up. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2000;24:269–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ibricevic H, al-Jame Q. Ferric sulphate and formocresol in pulpotomy of primary molars: long term follow up study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4:28–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeng HW, Feigal RJ, Messer HH. Comparison of the cytotoxicity of formocresol, formaldehyde, cresol, and glutaraldehyde using human pulp fibroblast cultures. Pediatr Dent. 1987;9:295–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Landau MJ, Johnsen DC. Pulpal responses to ferric sulfate in monkeys. J Dent Res. 1988;67:215.Google Scholar
  29. Lin PY, Huang SH, Chang HJ, Yang L. The effect of rubber dam usage on the survival rate of teeth receiving initial root canal treatment: a nationwide population-based study. J Endod. 2014;40:1733–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mallineni SK, Yiu CK. A retrospective review of outcomes of dental treatment performed for special needs patients under general anaesthesia: 2-year follow-up. Sci World J. 2014;2014:748353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mallineni SK, Yiu CKY. A retrospective audit of dental treatment provided to special needs patients under general anesthesia during a ten-year period. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;42:155–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markovic D, Zivojinovic V, Vucetic M. Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2005;6:133–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 (Tehran). 2006;3:6–14.Google Scholar
  35. Odabas ME, Alacam A, Sillelioglu H, Deveci C. Clinical and radiographic success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate and ferric sulphate pulpotomies performed by dental students. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012;13:118–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pashley EL, Myers DR, Pashley DH, Whitford GM. Systemic distribution of 14C formaldehyde from formocresol-treated pulpotomy sites. J Dent Res. 1980;59:602–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pruhs RJ, Olen GA, Sharma PS. Relationship between formocresol pulpotomies on primary teeth and enamel defects on their permanent successors. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94:698–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ranly DM. Pulpotomy therapy in primary teeth: new modalities for old rationales. Pediatr Dent. 1994;16:403–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith NL, Seale NS, Nunn ME. Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22:192–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinba T. A Comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod. 2008;34:950–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vargas KG, Packham B. Radiographic success of ferric sulfate and formocresol pulpotomies in relation to early exfoliation. Pediatr Dent. 2005;27:233–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Vargas KG, Packham B, Lowman D. Preliminary evaluation of sodium hypochlorite for pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2006;28:511–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Waterhouse PJ, Nunn JH, Whitworth JM. An investigation of the relative efficacy of Buckley’s formocresol and calcium hydroxide in primary molar vital pulp therapy. Br Dent J. 2000;188:32–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Watts A, Paterson RC. Pulpal response to a zinc oxide-eugenol cement. Int Endod J. 1987;20:82–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yadav P, Indushekar K, Saraf B, Sheoran N, Sardana D. Comparative evaluation of ferric sulfate, electrosurgical and diode laser on human primary molars pulpotomy: an “in vivo” study. Laser Ther. 2014;23:41–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yildiz E, Tosun G. Evaluation of formocresol, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulfate, and MTA primary molar pulpotomies. Eur J Dent. 2014;8:234–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Paedodontics and Preventive DentistryNarayana Dental College and HospitalNelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations