Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Sep-Oct;32(5):393-9.

Comparing gray mineral trioxide aggregate and diluted formocresol in pulpotomized human primary molars

Cameron M Zealand  1 , Daniel M Briskie, Tatiana M Botero, James R Boynton, Jan C C Hu
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparing gray mineral trioxide aggregate and diluted formocresol in pulpotomized human primary molars

Cameron M Zealand et al. Pediatr Dent. 2010 Sep-Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this multisite, multioperator, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 6-month outcomes of diluted formocresol (DFC) compared to gray mineral trioxide aggregate (GMTA) as pulpotomy medicament.

Methods: Determined by a power analysis, 252 molars of 152 children were recruited. The teeth were randomly assigned to receive GMTA or DFC. At the 6-month follow-up, 118 children with 203 treated teeth were evaluated.

Results: Four blinded and calibrated evaluators scored each radiograph for pathologies. Clinical success was similar for DFC (97%) and GMTA (100%), (P<.09). Radiographic success differed significantly (P<.04) for DFC (86%) and GMTA (95%). Pulp canal obliteration was radiographically observed in 25% of the DFC group and in 37% of the GMTA group (P=.07). Dentin bridging was observed in 22% of the GMTA group but was not found in the DFC group (P<.01).

Conclusion: Teeth treated with GMTA showed more favorable radiographic outcomes than DFC at 6 months post-treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of recruited teeth through study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Radiographic changes observed at 6-month follow-up. (A) Preoperative view and (B) 6-month postoperative view of GMTA-treated tooth K showing dentin bridge and pulp canal obliteration (mesial and distal canal). (C) Preoperative view and (D) 6-month postoperative view of diluted formocresol (DFC)-treated tooth S showing internal root resorption-nonperforated form (IRR-NP) in distal canal. (E) Preoperative view and (F) 6-month postoperative view of DFC-treated tooth S showing IRR-P (perforated form). (G) Preoperative view and (H) 6-month postoperative view of DFC-treated tooth T showing a periradicular lesion.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Seale NS, Glickman GN. Contemporary perspectives on vital pulp therapy: Views from the endodontists and pediatric dentists. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:261–7. - PubMed
    1. Milnes AR. Is formocresol obsolete? A fresh look at the evidence concerning safety issues. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:237–46. - PubMed
    1. Fuks AB, Papagiannoulis L. Pulpotomy in primary teeth: Review of the literature according to standardized criteria. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7:64–71. discussion 72. - PubMed
    1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Affairs Committee Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2008;29:163–7. - PubMed
    1. Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL, Johnston DH. Do we still need formocresol in pediatric dentistry? J Can Dent Assoc. 2005;71:749–51. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources