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
. 2015 Jan-Apr;8(1):18-21.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1277. Epub 2015 Apr 28.

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

Affiliations

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

Garima Gupta et al. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015 Jan-Apr.

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.

Keywords: Electrosurgery; Ferric sulfate; Laser; Pulpotomy..

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
15.5% Ferric sulfate (Astringedent), electrosurgery unit (Bonart ART-E1) and diode laser (Sunny Gold)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Radiographical failure of ferric sulfate (group 1)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Radiographical failure of electrosurgery (group 2)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Overall clinical and radiographic follow-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months

References

    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. - PubMed
    1. Sweet CA. Procedure for treatment of exposed and pulpless deciduous teeth. J Am Dent Association. 1930;17:1150–1153.
    1. Peng L, Ye L, Guo X, Tan H, Zhou X, Wang C, Li R. Evaluation of formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pu lpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J. 2007;40(10):751–757. - PubMed
    1. Lewis B. Formaldehyde in dentistry: a review for the millennium. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1998;22(2):167–177. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources