Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow-up

Abstract

Seventy primary molar teeth, carious exposed, symptom free, without any sign of root resorption in children aged from 3 to 6 years (main age 4.3yr) were treated with conventional pulpotomy procedures. Ferric sulfate 15.5% solution (applied for 15 second for 35 teeth) and formocresol solution (five minute procedure of Buckley's formula for next 35 teeth) have been used as pulpotomy agents. In both groups, pulp stumps were covered with zinc-oxide eugenol paste. Permanent restorations were stainless steel crowns. Clinical check up was every three-months and radiographic follow-up time was six and twenty months after treatment. Our results within this period revealed 100% clinical success rate in both groups. Radiographic success rate was in both groups 97.2%, while in 2.8% cases has shown internal root resorption. On the basis of these results, we can recommend ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth in substitution for formocresol at the moment.

Survey of comprehensive restorative treatment for children under general anesthesia

“…16e18 Pulpotomies performed with either formocresol or ferric sulfate have been proved to have similar clinical/radiographic success. 19,20 The success rate for indirect pulp capping is also consistent with many other studies. 21e23 No significant differences in success rates of placing calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer cement, or an adhesive resin system over a carious lesion in primary molars were stated.…”

A Comparison of Four Pulpotomy Techniques in Primary Molars: A Long-term Follow-up

“…Next, either a dentin bridge is formed directly against the necrotic zone or the necrotic zone is resorbed and replaced by a dentin bridge. Ca(OH) 2 pulpotomies have a reported success rate of 70% (28,33).…”

Formecresol Performs Better Than Calcium Hydroxide as a Pulpotomy Technique Over 2-year Period

“…Their results are consistent with randomized control trials previously done. 3,4 Weaknesses The authors acknowledge that a limitation of this study was the sample size for the Er:YAG laser. The sample size was too small to answer the question regarding the differences between outcomes with a laser compared with formocresol.…”