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
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 May 31;5(5):CD003220.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003220.pub3.

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth

Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron  1 , Anne-Marie Glenny, Frédéric Courson, Pierre Durieux, Michele Muller-Bolla, Helene Fron Chabouis
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth

Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: In children, dental caries (tooth decay) is among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. Pulp interventions are indicated for extensive tooth decay. Depending on the severity of the disease, three pulp treatment techniques are available: direct pulp capping, pulpotomy and pulpectomy. After treatment, the cavity is filled with a medicament. Materials commonly used include mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium hydroxide, formocresol or ferric sulphate.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014 when insufficient evidence was found to clearly identify one superior pulpotomy medicament and technique.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different pulp treatment techniques and associated medicaments for the treatment of extensive decay in primary teeth.

Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 August 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 August 2017) and the Web of Science (1945 to 10 August 2017). OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions that combined a pulp treatment technique with a medicament or device in children with extensive decay in the dental pulp of their primary teeth.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed 'Risk of bias'. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information when necessary. The primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure, as defined in trials, at six, 12 and 24 months. We performed data synthesis with pair-wise meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using I² coefficients.

Main results: We included 40 new trials bringing the total to 87 included trials (7140 randomised teeth) for this update. All were small, single-centre trials (median number of randomised teeth = 68). All trials were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias.The 87 trials examined 125 different comparisons: 75 comparisons of different medicaments or techniques for pulpotomy; 25 comparisons of different medicaments for pulpectomy; four comparisons of pulpotomy and pulpectomy; and 21 comparisons of different medicaments for direct pulp capping.The proportion of clinical failures and radiological failures was low in all trials. In many trials, there were either no clinical failures or no radiographic failures in either study arm.For pulpotomy, we assessed three comparisons as providing moderate-quality evidence. Compared with formocresol, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with a statistically significant difference at 12 months for clinical failure and at six, 12 and 24 months for radiological failure (12 trials, 740 participants). Compared with calcium hydroxide, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with statistically significant differences for clinical failure at 12 and 24 months. MTA also appeared to reduce radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (four trials, 150 participants) (low-quality evidence). When comparing calcium hydroxide with formocresol, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of formocresol for clinical failure at six and 12 months and radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (six trials (one with no failures), 332 participants).Regarding pulpectomy, we found moderate-quality evidence for two comparisons. The comparison between Metapex and zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) paste was inconclusive, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions for failure at 6 or 12 months (two trials, 62 participants). Similarly inconclusive, there was no clear evidence of a difference in failure between Endoflas and ZOE (outcomes measured at 6 months; two trials, 80 participants). There was low-quality evidence of a difference in failure at 12 months that suggested ZOE paste may be better than Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) paste (two trials, 161 participants).Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies undertaking the same comparison limits any interpretation. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low or very low for all comparisons. One trial appeared to favour formocresol over calcium hydroxide; however, there are safety concerns about formocresol.

Authors' conclusions: Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth is generally successful. Many included trials had no clinical or radiological failures in either trial arm, and the overall proportion of failures was low. Any future trials in this area would require a very large sample size and follow up of a minimum of one year.The evidence suggests MTA may be the most efficacious medicament to heal the root pulp after pulpotomy of a deciduous tooth. As MTA is relatively expensive, future research could be undertaken to confirm if Biodentine, enamel matrix derivative, laser treatment or Ankaferd Blood Stopper are acceptable second choices, and whether, where none of these treatments can be used, application of sodium hypochlorite is the safest option. Formocresol, though effective, has known concerns about toxicity.Regarding pulpectomy, there is no conclusive evidence that one medicament or technique is superior to another, and so the choice of medicament remains at the clinician's discretion. Research could be undertaken to confirm if ZOE paste is more effective than Vitapex and to evaluate other alternatives.Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies and low quality of the evidence limited interpretation. Formocresol may be more successful than calcium hydroxide; however, given its toxicity, any future research should focus on alternatives.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Violaine Smaïl‐Faugeron: none known Anne‐Marie Glenny: none known. I am Deputy Co‐ordinating Editor with Cochrane Oral Health. Frédéric Courson: none known Pierre Durieux: has received in the past three years research grants from the French Ministry of Health (PREQHOS, PHRC). He has been member of scientific committees of ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche), PREQHOS (Projets de Recherche en qualité hospitalière) and PREPS (Projets de Recherche en Performance de Soins) of the French Ministry of Health. He has received consultancies from Amgen and ONYX, and the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). The author has no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the review in the previous three years (except the fact that the author is employee of an acute care hospital). Michele Muller‐Bolla: none known Hélène Fron Chabouis: our lab (URB2i, Universite Paris Descartes) has developed industrial partnerships but these did not have any link with this review and did not influence my work.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological mobility.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological radiolucency.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 10 Dentin bridge formation.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength or 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 11 Physiological root resorption.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological root resorption.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus full strength formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pulp canal obliteration.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological mobility.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
3.7
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
3.8
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pulp canal obliteration.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic mobility.
4.7
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic radiolucency.
4.8
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
4.9
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
5.4
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
5.5
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
5.6
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological mobility.
5.7
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological radiolucency.
5.8
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
5.9
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
5.10
5.10. Analysis
Comparison 5 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus calcium hydroxide pulpotomy, Outcome 10 Dentin bridge formation.
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
6.2
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
6.3
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
6.4
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
6.5
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
6.6
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
6.7
6.7. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
6.8
6.8. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pulp canal obliteration.
6.9
6.9. Analysis
Comparison 6 Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy versus Portland cement pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Dentin bridge formation.
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
7.2
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
7.3
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
7.4
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
7.5
7.5. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
7.6
7.6. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
7.7
7.7. Analysis
Comparison 7 Biodentine pulpotomy versus Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
8.1
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
8.2
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
8.3
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
8.4
8.4. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
8.5
8.5. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Soft tissue pathology.
8.6
8.6. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological mobility.
8.7
8.7. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathological radiolucency.
8.8
8.8. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathological root resorption.
8.9
8.9. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 9 Pulp canal obliteration.
8.10
8.10. Analysis
Comparison 8 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 10 Dentin bridge formation.
9.1
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
9.2
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
9.3
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
9.4
9.4. Analysis
Comparison 9 Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy versus ferric sulphate pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological root resorption.
10.1
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
10.2
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
10.3
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
10.4
10.4. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
10.5
10.5. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
10.6
10.6. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological root resorption.
10.7
10.7. Analysis
Comparison 10 Ferric sulphate pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pulp canal obliteration.
11.1
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
11.2
11.2. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
11.3
11.3. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
11.4
11.4. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
11.5
11.5. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Adjacent tissue inflammation.
11.6
11.6. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic mobility.
11.7
11.7. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic radiolucency.
11.8
11.8. Analysis
Comparison 11 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 8 Pathologic root resorption.
12.1
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
12.2
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
12.3
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
12.4
12.4. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological radiolucency.
12.5
12.5. Analysis
Comparison 12 Diode laser pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological root resorption.
13.1
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
13.2
13.2. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
13.3
13.3. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
13.4
13.4. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological mobility.
13.5
13.5. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological root resorption.
13.6
13.6. Analysis
Comparison 13 Electrosurgery pulpotomy versus ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pulp canal obliteration.
14.1
14.1. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
14.2
14.2. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
14.3
14.3. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
14.4
14.4. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
14.5
14.5. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
14.6
14.6. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic radiolucency.
14.7
14.7. Analysis
Comparison 14 Ankaferd Blood Stopper (ABS) versus Ferric Sulfate (FS) pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic root resorption.
15.1
15.1. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
15.2
15.2. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
15.3
15.3. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
15.4
15.4. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathological mobility.
15.5
15.5. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
15.6
15.6. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathological root resorption.
15.7
15.7. Analysis
Comparison 15 Diode laser pulpotomy versus electrosurgery pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pulp canal obliteration.
16.1
16.1. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
16.2
16.2. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
16.3
16.3. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
16.4
16.4. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
16.5
16.5. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
16.6
16.6. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 6 Pathologic radiolucency.
16.7
16.7. Analysis
Comparison 16 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) pulpotomy versus 1:5 diluted formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 7 Pathologic root resorption.
17.1
17.1. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
17.2
17.2. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 2 Pain.
17.3
17.3. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 3 Soft tissue pathology.
17.4
17.4. Analysis
Comparison 17 Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) pulpotomy versus formocresol pulpotomy, Outcome 4 Pathologic mobility.
18.1
18.1. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Radiological failure.
18.2
18.2. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Pain.
18.3
18.3. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Pathological mobility.
18.4
18.4. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Pathological radiolucency.
18.5
18.5. Analysis
Comparison 18 Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathological radiolucency.
19.1
19.1. Analysis
Comparison 19 Metapex versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
19.2
19.2. Analysis
Comparison 19 Metapex versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
20.1
20.1. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clincal failure.
20.2
20.2. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
20.3
20.3. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
20.4
20.4. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Soft tissue pathology.
20.5
20.5. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic mobility.
20.6
20.6. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 6 Pathological radiolucency.
20.7
20.7. Analysis
Comparison 20 Metapex pulpectomy versus Endoflas pulpectomy, Outcome 7 Pathological root resorption.
21.1
21.1. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
21.2
21.2. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
21.3
21.3. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Overall failure.
21.4
21.4. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Pain.
21.5
21.5. Analysis
Comparison 21 Vitapex pulpectomy versus zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathological mobility.
22.1
22.1. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 1 Clinical failure.
22.2
22.2. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 2 Radiological failure.
22.3
22.3. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 3 Pain.
22.4
22.4. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 4 Pathologic mobility.
22.5
22.5. Analysis
Comparison 22 Endoflas pulpectomy versus zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy, Outcome 5 Pathologic radiolucency.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Comment in

References

References to studies included in this review

Aeinehchi 2007 {published data only}
    1. Aeinehchi M, Dadvand S, Fayazi S, Bayat‐Movahed S. Randomized controlled trial of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol for pulpotomy in primary molar teeth. International Endodontic Journal 2007; Vol. 40, issue 4:261‐7. - PubMed
Agamy 2004 {published data only}
    1. Agamy HA, Bakry NS, Mounir MM, Avery DR. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp‐capping agents in pulpotomized primary teeth. Pediatric Dentistry 2004; Vol. 26, issue 4:302‐9. - PubMed
Akcay 2014 {published data only}
    1. Akcay M, Sari S. The effect of sodium hypochlorite application on the success of calcium hydroxide and mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomies in primary teeth. Pediatric Dentistry 2014;36(4):316‐21. - PubMed
Alaçam 1989 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Alaçam A. Long term effects of primary teeth pulpotomies with formocresol, glutaraldehyde‐calcium and glutaraldehyde‐zinc oxide eugenol on succudaneous teeth. Journal of Pedodontics 1989;13(4):307‐13. - PubMed
    1. Alaçam A. Pulpal tissue changes following pulpotomies with formocresol, glutaraldehyde‐calcium hydroxide, glutaraldehyde‐zinc oxide eugenol pastes in primary teeth. Journal of Pedodontics 1989;13:123‐32. - PubMed
Alaçam 2009 {published data only}
    1. Alaçam A, Odabaş ME, Tüzüner T, Sillelioğlu H, Baygin O. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of calcium hydroxide and formocresol pulpotomies performed by dental students. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics 2009;108(5):e127‐33. - PubMed
Al‐Ostwani 2016 {published data only}
    1. Al‐Ostwani AO, Al‐Monaqel BM, Al‐Tinawi MK. A clinical and radiographic study of four different root canal fillings in primary molars. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2016;34:55‐9. - PubMed
Aminabadi 2010 {published data only}
    1. Aminabadi NA, Farahani RM, Oskouei SG. Formocresol versus calcium hydroxide direct pulp capping of human primary molars: two year follow‐up. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2010;34(4):317‐21. [PUBMED: 20831133] - PubMed
Aminabadi 2016 {published data only}
    1. Asl Aminabadi N, Satrab S, Najafpour E, Samiei M, Jamali Z, Shirazi S. A randomized trial of direct pulp capping in primary molars using MTA compared to 3Mixtatin: a novel pulp capping biomaterial. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2016;26(4):281‐90. - PubMed
Ansari 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ansari G, Ranjpour M. Mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy of primary teeth: a 2‐year follow‐up. International Endodontic Journal 2010;43(5):413‐8. [PUBMED: 20518934] - PubMed
Arikan 2016 {published data only}
    1. Arikan V, Sonmez H, Sari S. Comparison of two base materials regarding their effect on root canal treatment success in primary molars with furcation lesions. BioMed Research International 2016;2016:1429286. - PMC - PubMed
Bahrololoomi 2008 {published data only}
    1. 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 Journal of Dental Research 2008; Vol. 19, issue 3:219‐23. - PubMed
Bezgin 2016 {published data only}
    1. Bezgin T, Ozgul BM, Arikan V, Sari S. Root canal filling in primary molars without successors: Mineral trioxide aggregate versus gutta‐percha/AH‐Plus. Australian Endodontic Journal 2016;42:73‐81. - PubMed
Cantekin 2014 {published data only}
    1. Cantekin K, Gümüş H. Success rates of ankaferd blood stopper and ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agents in primary molars. International Scholarly Research Notices 2014;2014:819605. - PMC - PubMed
Casas 2004 {published data only}
    1. Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Long‐term outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. Pediatric Dentistry 2004;26(1):44‐8. - PubMed
    1. Casas MJ, Layug MA, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Two‐year outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy. Pediatric Dentistry 2003;25(2):97‐102. [PUBMED: 12723832] - PubMed
Celik 2013 {published data only}
    1. Celik B, Ataç AS, Cehreli ZC, Uysal S. A randomized trial of mineral trioxide aggregate cements in primary tooth pulpotomies. Journal of Dentistry for Children (Chicago, Ill.) 2013;80(3):126‐32. - PubMed
Chandra 2014 {published data only}
    1. Chandra SP, Chandrasekhar R, Uloopi KS, Vinay C, Kumar NM. Success of root fillings with zinc oxide‐ozonated oil in primary molars: preliminary results. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2014;15(3):191‐5. - PubMed
Chen 2015 {published data only}
    1. Chen XX, Lin BC, Zhong J, Ge LH. Degradation evaluation and success of pulpectomy with a modified primary root canal filling in primary molars. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2015;47(3):529‐35. - PubMed
Coser 2008 {published data only}
    1. Coser RM, Gondim JO, Aparecida Giro EM. Evaluation of 2 endodontic techniques used to treat human primary molars with furcation radiolucency area: a 48‐month radiographic study. Quintessence International 2008;39(7):549‐57. - PubMed
Cuadros‐Fernández 2016 {published data only}
    1. Cuadros‐Fernández C, Lorente Rodríguez AI, Sáez‐Martínez S, García‐Binimelis J, About I, Mercadé M. Short‐term treatment outcome of pulpotomies in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine: a randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Investigations 2016;20(7):1639‐45. - PubMed
Dean 2002 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Dean JA, Mack RB, Fulkerson BT, Sanders BJ. Comparison of electrosurgical and formocresol pulpotomy procedures on children. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2002;12:177‐82. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Demir 2007 {published data only}
    1. Demir T, Cehreli ZC. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of adhesive pulp capping in primary molars following hemostasis with 1.25% sodium hypochlorite: 2‐year results. American Journal of Dentistry 2007;20(3):182‐8. - PubMed
Doyle 2010 {published data only}
    1. Doyle TL, Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL. Mineral trioxide aggregate produces superior outcomes in vital primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatric Dentistry 2010;32(1):41‐7. [PUBMED: 20298652] - PubMed
Durmus 2014 {published data only}
    1. Durmus B, Tanboga I. In vivo evaluation of the treatment outcome of pulpotomy in primary molars using diode laser, formocresol, and ferric sulphate. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery 2014;32(5):289‐95. - PMC - PubMed
Eidelman 2001 {published data only}
    1. Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatric Dentistry 2001;23(1):15‐8. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
El Meligy 2016 {published data only}
    1. Meligy O A, Allazzam S, Alamoudi N M. Comparison between biodentine and formocresol for pulpotomy of primary teeth: A randomized clinical trial. Quintessence International 2016;47(7):571‐80. - PubMed
Erdem 2011 {published data only}
    1. Erdem AP, Guven Y, Balli B, Ilhan B, Sepet E, Ulukapi I, et al. Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol pulpotomies: a 24‐month study. Pediatric Dentistry 2011;33(2):165‐70. [PUBMED: 21703067] - PubMed
Fallahinejad Ghajari 2013 {published data only}
    1. Fallahinejad Ghajari M, Asgharian Jeddi T, Iri S, Asgary S. Direct pulp‐capping with calcium enriched mixture in primary molar teeth: a randomized clinical trial. Iranian Endodontic Journal 2010;5(1):27‐30. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fallahinejad Ghajari M, Asgharian Jeddi T, Iri S, Asgary S. Treatment outcomes of direct pulp‐capping after 20 months: a randomized controlled trial. Iranian Endodontic Journal 2013;8(4):149‐52. - PMC - PubMed
Farsi 2005 {published data only}
    1. Farsi N, Alamoudi N, Balto K, Mushayt A. Success of mineral trioxide aggregate in pulpotomized primary molars. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2005;29(4):307‐11. - PubMed
Fei 1991 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Fei AL, Udin RD, Johnson R. A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth. Pediatric Dentistry 1991;13(6):327‐32. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Fernandes 2015 {published data only}
    1. Fernandes A P, Lourenco Neto N, Teixeira Marques N C, Silveira Moretti A B, Sakai V T, Cruvinel Silva T, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the use of Low‐Level Laser Therapy in vital pulp of primary teeth. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2015;25(2):144‐50. - PubMed
Fernández 2013 {published data only}
    1. Fernández CC, Martínez SS, Jimeno FG, Lorente Rodríguez AI, Mercadé 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. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2013;23(6):400‐7. - PubMed
Fishman 1996 {published data only}
    1. Fishman SA, Udin RD, Good DL, Rodef F. Success of electrofulguration pulpotomies covered by zinc oxide and eugenol or calcium hydroxide: a clinical study. Pediatric Dentistry 1996;18(5):385‐90. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Fuks 1997 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, Eidelman E. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: long‐term follow up. Pediatric Dentistry 1997;19(5):327‐30. - PubMed
Garrocho‐Rangel 2009 {published data only}
    1. Garrocho‐Rangel A, Flores H, Silva‐Herzog D, Hernandez‐Sierra F, Mandeville P, Pozos‐Guillen AJ. Efficacy of EMD versus calcium hydroxide in direct pulp capping of primary molars: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics 2009;107(5):733‐8. - PubMed
Goyal 2014 {published data only}
    1. Goyal S, Abuwala T, Joshi K, Mehta J, Indushekar KR, Hallikerimath S. The clinical, radiographic and histological evaluation of three different concentrations of formocresol as a pulpotomy agent. Journal of International Oral Health 2014;6(2):118‐25. - PMC - PubMed
Goyal 2016 {published data only}
    1. Goyal P, Pandit IK, Gugnani N, Gupta M, Goel R, Gambhir RS. Clinical and radiographic comparison of various medicaments used for pulpotomy in primary molars: A randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Dentistry 2016;10(3):315‐20. [PUBMED: 27403046] - PMC - PubMed
Grewal 2016 {published data only}
    1. Grewal N, Salhan R, Kaur N, Patel H B. Comparative evaluation of calcium silicate‐based dentin substitute (Biodentine(R)) and calcium hydroxide (pulpdent) in the formation of reactive dentin bridge in regenerative pulpotomy of vital primary teeth: Triple blind, randomized clinical trial. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 2016;7(4):457‐63. - PMC - PubMed
Gupta 2015 {published data only}
    1. Gupta G, Rana V, Srivastava N, Chandna P. Laser Pulpotomy‐An Effective Alternative to Conventional Techniques: A 12 Months Clinicoradiographic Study. Jaypees International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2015;8(1):18‐21. - PMC - PubMed
Haghgoo 2009 {published data only}
    1. Haghgoo R, MollaAsadolla F, Abbasi F. Evaluation of clinical and radiographic success rates of root MTA and formocresol in pulpotomy of primary molars. Journal of Dental Medicine 2009;22(2):136‐41.
Holan 2005 {published data only}
    1. Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Long‐term evaluation of pulpotomy in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate or formocresol. Pediatric Dentistry 2005; Vol. 27, issue 2:129‐36. - PubMed
Huth 2005 {published data only}
    1. Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek‐Al‐Khatar N, Hollweck R, Crispin A, Hickel R, et al. Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques ‐ randomized controlled trial. Journal of Dental Research 2005;84(12):1144‐8. - PubMed
Ibricevic 2000 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Ibricevic H, Al‐Jame Q. Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow‐up. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2000;24(4):269‐72. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Ibricevic H, Al‐Jame Q. Ferric sulphate and formocresol in pulpotomy of primary molars: long term follow‐up study. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2003;4(1):28‐32. [PUBMED: 12870985] - PubMed
Jayam 2014 {published data only}
    1. Jayam C, Mitra M, Mishra J, Bhattacharya B, Jana B. Evaluation and comparison of white mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol medicaments in primary tooth pulpotomy: clinical and radiographic study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2014;32(1):13‐8. - PubMed
Kalra 2017 {published data only}
    1. Kalra M, Garg N, Rallan M, Pathivada L, Yeluri R. Comparative evaluation of fresh aloe barbadensis plant extract and mineral trioxide aggregate as pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a 12‐month follow‐up study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 2017;8(1):106‐11. - PMC - PubMed
Kang 2015 {published data only}
    1. Kang C‐M, Kim S‐H, Shin Y, Lee H‐S, Lee J‐H, Kim GT, et al. A randomized controlled trial of ProRoot MTA, Ortho MTA and Retro MTA for pulpotomy in primary molars. Oral Diseases 2015;21(6):785‐91. - PubMed
Khorakian 2014 {published data only}
    1. Khorakian F, Mazhari F, Asgary S, Sahebnasagh M, Alizadeh Kaseb A, Movahhed T, et al. Two‐year outcomes of electrosurgery and calcium‐enriched mixture pulpotomy in primary teeth: a randomised clinical trial. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2014;15(4):223‐8. - PubMed
Kusum 2015 {published data only}
    1. Kusum B, Rakesh K, Richa K. Clinical and radiographical evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate, biodentine and propolis as pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics 2015;40(4):276‐85. - PMC - PubMed
Liu 2011 {published data only}
    1. Liu H, Zhou Q, Qin M. Mineral trioxide aggregate versus calcium hydroxide for pulpotomy in primary molars. Chinese Journal of Dental Research 2011;14(2):121‐5. - PubMed
Lourenço 2015a {published data only}
    1. Lourenço Neto N, Marques NC, Fernandes AP, Hungaro Duarte MA, Abdo RC, Machado MA, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Portland cement added to radiopacifying agents in primary molar pulpotomies. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2015;16(5):377‐82. [PUBMED: 25788172] - PubMed
Malekafzali 2011 {published data only}
    1. Malekafzali B, Shekarchi F, Asgary S. Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy in primary molars using two endodontic biomaterials. A 2‐year randomised clinical trial. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2011;12(3):189‐93. [PUBMED: 22077689] - PubMed
Markovic 2005 {published data only}
    1. Markovic D, Zivojinovic V, Vucetic M. Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2005; Vol. 6, issue 3:133‐8. - PubMed
Moretti 2008 {published data only}
    1. Moretti AB, Sakai VT, Oliveira TM, Fornetti AP, Santos CF, Machado MA, et al. The effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium hydroxide and formocresol for pulpotomies in primary teeth. International Endodontic Journal 2008; Vol. 41, issue 7:547‐55. - PubMed
Mortazavi 2004 {published data only}
    1. Mortazavi M, Mesbahi M. Comparison of zinc oxide and eugenol, and Vitapex for root canal treatment of necrotic primary teeth. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2004; Vol. 14, issue 6:417‐24. - PubMed
Nadkarni 2000 {published data only}
    1. Nadkarni U, Damle SG. Comparative evaluation of calcium hydroxide and zinc oxide eugenol as root canal filling materials for primary molars: a clinical and radiographic study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2000;18(1):1‐10. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Naik 2005 {published data only}
    1. Naik S, Hegde AH. Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy agent in primary molars: an in vivo study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2005;23(1):13‐6. [PUBMED: 15858300] - PubMed
Nakornchai 2010 {published data only}
    1. Nakornchai S, Banditsing P, Visetratana N. Clinical evaluation of 3Mix and Vitapex as treatment options for pulpally involved primary molars. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2010;20(3):214‐21. [PUBMED: 20409203] - PubMed
Nguyen 2017 {published data only}
    1. Nguyen T D, Judd P L, Barrett E J, Sidhu N, Casas M J. Comparison of ferric sulfate combined mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy and zinc oxide eugenol pulpectomy of primary maxillary incisors: an 18‐month randomized, controlled trial. Pediatric Dentistry 2017;39(1):34‐8. - PubMed
Niranjani 2015 {published data only}
    1. Niranjani K, Prasad MG, Vasa AA, Divya G, Thakur MS, Saujanya K. Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using Mineral Trioxide Aggregate(®), laser and Biodentine(TM)‐ an in vivo study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2015;9(4):ZC35‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Noorollahian 2008 {published data only}
    1. Noorollahian H. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp medicaments for pulpotomies in primary molars. British Dental Journal 2008; Vol. 204, issue 11:E20. - PubMed
Olatosi 2015 {published data only}
    1. Olatosi OO, Sote EO, Orenuga OO. Effect of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy on vital primary teeth: a clinical and radiographic study. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 2015;18(2):292‐6. - PubMed
Oliveira 2013a {published data only}
    1. Oliveira TM, Moretti AB, Sakai VT, Lourenço Neto N, Santos CF, Machado MA, et al. Clinical, radiographic and histologic analysis of the effects of pulp capping materials used in pulpotomies of human primary teeth. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2013;14(2):65‐71. [PUBMED: 23549993] - PubMed
Ozalp 2005 {published data only}
    1. Ozalp N, Saroğlu I, Sönmez H. Evaluation of various root canal filling materials in primary molar pulpectomies: an in vivo study. American Journal of Dentistry 2005; Vol. 18, issue 6:347‐50. - PubMed
Ozmen 2017 {published data only}
    1. Ozmen B, Bayrak S. Comparative evaluation of ankaferd blood stopper, ferric sulfate, and formocresol as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: A clinical study. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 2017;20(7):832‐8. - PubMed
Pinky 2011 {published data only}
    1. Pinky C, Shashibhushan KK, Subbareddy VV. Endodontic treatment of necrosed primary teeth using two different combinations of antibacterial drugs: an in vivo study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2011;29(2):121‐7. [PUBMED: 21911950] - PubMed
Prabhakar 2008 {published data only}
    1. Prabhakar AR, Sridevi E, Raju OS, Satish V. Endodontic treatment of primary teeth using combination of antibacterial drugs: an in vivo study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2008;26(5):5‐10. - PubMed
Pramila 2016 {published data only}
    1. Pramila R, Muthu M S, Deepa G, Farzan J M, Rodrigues S J. Pulpectomies in primary mandibular molars: a comparison of outcomes using three root filling materials. International Endodontic Journal 2016;49(5):413‐21. - PubMed
Rajasekharan 2017 {published data only}
    1. Rajasekharan S, Martens L C, Vandenbulcke J, Jacquet W, Bottenberg P, Cauwels R G. Efficacy of three different pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a randomized control trial. International Endodontic Journal 2017;50(3):215‐28. - PubMed
Ramar 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ramar K, Mungara J. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpectomies using three root canal filling materials: an in‐vivo study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2010;28(1):25‐9. [PUBMED: 20215668] - PubMed
Rewal 2014 {published data only}
    1. Rewal N, Thakur A S, Sachdev V, Mahajan N. Comparison of endoflas and zinc oxide eugenol as root canal filling materials in primary dentition. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2014;32(4):317‐21. - PubMed
Sabbarini 2008 {published data only}
    1. Sabbarini J, Mohamed A, Wahba N, El‐Meligy O, Dean J. Comparison of enamel matrix derivative versus formocresol as pulpotomy agents in the primary dentition. Journal of Endodontics 2008; Vol. 34, issue 3:284‐7. - PubMed
Sakai 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sakai VT, Moretti ABS, Oliveira TM, Fornetti APC, Santos CF, Machado M, et al. Summary of pulpotomy of human primary molars with MTA and Portland cement: a randomised controlled trial. British Dental Journal 2009;207(3):128‐9. [0007‐0610] - PubMed
Saltzman 2005 {published data only}
    1. Saltzman B, Sigal M, Clokie C, Rukavina J, Titley K, Kulkarni GV. Assessment of a novel alternative to conventional formocresol‐zinc oxide eugenol pulpotomy for the treatment of pulpally involved human primary teeth: diode laser‐mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2005; Vol. 15, issue 6:437‐47. - PubMed
Shabzendedar 2013 {published data only}
    1. Shabzendedar M, Mazhari F, Alami M, Talebi M. Sodium hypochlorite vs formocresol as pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars: 1‐year follow‐up. Pediatric Dentistry 2013;35(4):329‐32. - PubMed
Shumayrikh 1999 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Shumayrikh NM, Adenubi JO. Clinical evaluation of glutaraldehyde with calcium hydroxide and glutaraldehyde with zinc oxide eugenol in pulpotomy of primary molars. Endodontics and Dental Traumatology 1999;15(6):259‐64. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Sonmez 2008 {published data only}
    1. Sonmez D, Sari S, Cetinbaş T. A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long‐term follow‐up. Journal of Endodontics 2008;34(8):950‐5. - PubMed
Subramaniam 2009 {published data only}
    1. Subramaniam P, Konde S, Mathew S, Sugnani S. Mineral trioxide aggregate as pulp capping agent for primary teeth pulpotomy: 2 year follow up study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2009; Vol. 33, issue 4:311‐4. - PubMed
Subramaniam 2011 {published data only}
    1. Subramaniam P, Gilhotra K. Endoflas, zinc oxide eugenol and Metapex as root canal filling materials in primary molars ‐ a comparative clinical study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2011;35(4):365‐9. [PUBMED: 22046693] - PubMed
Trairatvorakul 2008 {published data only}
    1. Trairatvorakul C, Chunlasikaiwan S. Success of pulpectomy with zinc oxide‐eugenol vs calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste in primary molars: a clinical study. Pediatric Dentistry 2008; Vol. 30, issue 4:303‐8. - PubMed
Tuna 2008 {published data only}
    1. Tuna D, Olmez A. Clinical long‐term evaluation of MTA as a direct pulp capping material in primary teeth. International Endodontic Journal 2008; Vol. 41, issue 4:273‐8. - PubMed
Uloopi 2016 {published data only}
    1. Uloopi KS, Vinay C, Ratnaditya A, Gopal AS, Mrudula KJ, Rao RC. Clinical evaluation of low level diode laser application for primary teeth pulpotomy. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2016;10(1):ZC67‐70. - PMC - PubMed
Ulusoy 2014a {published data only}
    1. Ulusoy AT, Bayrak S, Bodrumlu EH. Clinical and radiological evaluation of calcium sulfate as direct pulp capping material in primary teeth. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2014;15(2):127‐31. [PUBMED: 25102461] - PubMed
Vargas 2006 {published data only}
    1. Vargas KG, Packham B, Lowman D. Preliminary evaluation of sodium hypochlorite for pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatric Dentistry 2006; Vol. 28, issue 6:511‐7. - PubMed
Waterhouse 2000 {published and unpublished data}
    1. 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. British Dental Journal 2000;188(1):32‐6. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Waterhouse PJ, Nunn JH, Whitworth JM. Prostaglandin E2 and treatment outcome in pulp therapy of primary molars with carious exposures. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2002;12(2):116‐23. [PUBMED: 11966889] - PubMed
Yadav 2014 {published data only}
    1. 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 Therapy 2014;23(1):41‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Yildirim 2016 {published data only}
    1. Yildirim C, Basak F, Akgun OM, Polat GG, Altun C. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the effectiveness of formocresol, mineral trioxide aggregate, portland cement, and enamel matrix derivative in primary teeth pulpotomies: a two year follow‐Up. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2016;40(1):14‐20. - PubMed
Zealand 2010 {published data only}
    1. Zealand CM, Briskie DM, Botero TM, Boynton JR, Hu JC. Comparing gray mineral trioxide aggregate and diluted formocresol in pulpotomized human primary molars. Pediatric Dentistry 2010;32(5):393‐9. [PUBMED: 21070705] - PMC - PubMed
Zurn 2008 {published data only}
    1. Zurn D, Seale NS. Light‐cured calcium hydroxide vs formocresol in human primary molar pulpotomies: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Dentistry 2008; Vol. 30, issue 1:34‐41. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Abdel‐Aziz 1999 {published data only}
    1. Abdel‐Aziz A, Abdella A. Clinical and histological evaluation of three antiseptics used in abscessed primary molars. Pediatric Dentistry 1999;21(5):115.
Aktoren 2000 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Aktoren O, Gencay K. A two year clinical‐radiographic follow‐up of the pulpotomies in primary molars. Journal of Dental Research 2000;79:543 (Abs No 3193).
Ansari 2009 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Ansari G, Vahid Golpaygani M, Chitsazan I, Fekrazad R. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of diode laser pulpotomy on human primary teeth: a preliminary study. Lasers in Medical Science Conference: World Federation for Laser Dentistry (WFLD). Hong Kong, 2009; Vol. 24(3):470‐1.
Ayrton 1969 {published data only}
    1. Ayrton Ode T, Benfatti SV, Andrioni JN. Clinical and morphological study of a therapeutic agent with formaldehyde base for the preservation of the deciduous teeth [Estudio clínico y morfológico de un medicamento con base de formaldehida para la conservación de los dientes temporales]. El Cooperador Dental; Cooperativismo, Información y Ciencia Odontológica 1969;35(1):16‐21. [PUBMED: 5255812] - PubMed
Badzian‐Kobos 1967 {published data only}
    1. Badzian‐Kobos K, Walczak A. Clinical evaluation of the results of treatment of live dental pulp with Ledermix and Calxyl in some pulp diseases in children [Kliniczna ocena wynikow leczenia przyzyciowego niektorych stanow chorobowych miazgi zebow dzieciecych preparatami "Ledermix" i "Calxyl"]. Czasopismo Stomatologiczne 1967;20(11):1139‐43. [PUBMED: 4965461] - PubMed
Barcelos 2011 {published data only}
    1. Barcelos R, Tannure PN, Rosario YMRV, Luiz RR, Gleiser R, Primo L. Permanent successors effects after smear layer removal in deciduous pulpectomies [abstract]. Proceedings of the 89th General Session of the International Association for Dental Research; 2011, Mar 16‐19; San Diego, California, United States. 2011:Abstract no: 3144.
Beaver 1966 {published data only}
    1. Beaver HA, Kopel HM, Sabes WR. The effect of zinc oxide ‐ eugenol cement on a formocresolized pulp. Journal of Dentistry for Children 1966;33:381‐96. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Berrebi 2009 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Berrebi J, Heysselaer D, Nyssen‐Behets C, Rocca JP, Mahler P, Limme M, et al. Clinical treatment of exposed pulp by direct capping/pulpotomy on primary and permanent immature teeth. Lasers in Medical Science Conference: World Federation for Laser Dentistry (WFLD). Hong Kong, 2009; Vol. 24(3):472.
Boggs 1969 {published data only}
    1. Boggs DC. Simple technique for treating non‐vital deciduous teeth ‐ a study. Northwest Dentistry 1969;48(2):102‐4. [PUBMED: 5253110] - PubMed
Brannstrom 1979 {published data only}
    1. Brannstrom M, Nyborg H, Stromberg T. Experiments with pulp capping. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology 1979;48(4):347‐52. [PUBMED: 291861] - PubMed
Casas 2003 {published data only}
    1. Casas M, Kenny D, Johnston D, Judd P, Layug M. Three‐year prospective outcome study of ferric sulphate pulpotomies and root canal treatment in vital primary molars. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2003;13 Suppl 1:9.
Chien 2001 {published data only}
    1. Chien MM, Setzer S, Cleaton‐Jones P. How does zinc oxide‐eugenol compare to ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy material?. Journal of the South African Dental Association 2001;56(3):130‐5. [CN‐00567178] - PubMed
Cuisia 2001 {published data only}
    1. Cuisia ZE, Musselman R, Schneider P, Dummett C. A study of mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatric Dentistry 2001;23(2):168.
Damle 1999 {published data only}
    1. Damle SG, Nadkarni U. A comparative study of two root canal resorbable filling materials in primary molars. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1999;9 Suppl 1:86 (Abs No 35.03).
Droter 1967 {published data only}
    1. Droter JA. Pulp therapy in primary teeth. Journal of Dentistry for Children 1967;34(6):507‐10. [PUBMED: 4864184] - PubMed
Einwag 1991 {published data only}
    1. Einwag J. Endodontics in primary dentition [Endodontie im milchgebiss]. Zahnarztliche Mitteilungen 1991;81(9):878‐84. [PUBMED: 1906661] - PubMed
Elomaa 1974 {published data only}
    1. Elomaa M, Rantanen L, Nystrom M. Use of chemotherapeutic‐corticoid combination in vital pulpotomy. Proceedings of the Finnish Dental Society. Suomen Hammaslaakariseuran Toimituksia 1974;70(1):1‐6. [PUBMED: 4821944] - PubMed
Fuks 2000 {published data only}
    1. Fuks AB, Papagiannoulis L, Geki S, Koulatzidou M, Polychronopoulou A. One‐year comparative study in pulpotomized primary teeth using ferric sulfate and diluted formocresol. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2000;1(3):128 (Abs No 98).
Grivu 1966 {published data only}
    1. Grivu O, Mecher E, Stoica E. Principles and present status of the therapy of pulp diseases in children [Principiile si stadiul actual al terapiei pulpopatiilor la copii]. Stomatologia 1966;13(3):233‐44. [PUBMED: 5224151] - PubMed
Hannah 1972 {published data only}
    1. Hannah DR. Glutaraldehyde and calcium hydroxide. A pulp dressing material. British Dental Journal 1972;132(6):227‐31. [PUBMED: 4504039] - PubMed
Hansen 1971 {published data only}
    1. Hansen HP, Ravn JJ, Ulrich D. Vital pulpotomy in primary molars. A clinical and histologic investigation of the effect of zinc oxide‐eugenol cement and Ledermix. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 1971;79:13‐23. - PubMed
Hartsook 1966 {published data only}
    1. Hartsook JT. Pulpal therapy in primary and young permanent teeth. Dental Clinics of North America 1966:377‐89. [PUBMED: 4222772] - PubMed
Ibricevic 2001 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Ibricevic H, Al‐Jame G. Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: clinical study. Journal of Dental Research 2001;80(4):1216 (Abs No 123).
Kalaskar 2004 {published data only}
    1. Kalaskar RR, Damle SG. Comparative evaluation of lyophilized freeze dried platelet derived preparation with calcium hydroxide as pulpotomy agents in primary molars. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2004;22(1):24‐9. - PubMed
Keszler 1987 {published data only}
    1. Keszler A, Dominguez FV. Current status of pulp treatment with formocresol [Estado actual del tratamiento pulpar con formocresol]. Revista Española de Endodoncia 1987;5(2):63‐70. [PUBMED: 3483227] - PubMed
Kouri 1969 {published data only}
    1. Kouri EM, Matthews JL, Taylor PP. Epinephrine in pulpotomy. ASDC Journal of Dentistry for Children 1969;36(2):123‐8. [PUBMED: 4888301] - PubMed
Liu 2003 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Liu JF. Nd:YAG laser pulpotomy of human primary teeth. Lasers in Dentistry, Proceedings: Revolution of Dental Treatment in the New Millennium 2003:251‐6.
Liu 2006 {published data only}
    1. Liu JF. Effects of Nd:YAG laser pulpotomy on human primary molars. Journal of Endodontics 2006; Vol. 32, issue 5:404‐7. - PubMed
Lourenço 2015 {published data only}
    1. Lourenço Neto N, Marques NC, Fernandes AP, Hungaro Duarte MA, Abdo RC, Machado MA, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Portland cement added to radiopacifying agents in primary molar pulpotomies. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2015;16(5):377‐82. - PubMed
Louwakul 2011 {published data only}
    1. Louwakul P, Prucksathamrongkul W. Effect of chlorhexidine on outcome of pulpectomy in primary molars [abstract]. Proceedings of the 45th Meeting of the Continental European Division of the International Association of Dental Research; 2011, Aug 31‐Sep 3; Budapest, Hungary. 2011:Abstract no: 497.
Mani 1999 {published data only}
    1. Mani SA, Chawla HS, Goel A. Zinc oxide‐eugenol or calcium hydroxide as root canal filling material in primary teeth. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1999;9(Suppl 1):113.
Massler 1968 {published data only}
    1. Massler M. Preventive endodontics: vital pulp therapy. Journal of the Dental Association of South Africa 1968;23(1):208‐15. [PUBMED: 5243415] - PubMed
Mejare 1979 {published data only}
    1. Mejare I. Pulpotomy of primary molars with coronal or total pulpitis using formocresol technique. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 1979;87(3):208‐16. - PubMed
NCT01622153 {published data only}
    1. NCT01622153. Electrical and formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01622153 (accessed 22 November 2017).
Odabas 2007 {published data only}
    1. Odabas ME, Bodur H, Baris E, Demir C. Clinical, radiographic, and histopathologic evaluation of Nd:YAG laser pulpotomy on human primary teeth. Journal of Endodontics 2007; Vol. 33, issue 4:415‐21. - PubMed
Percinoto 2006 {published data only}
    1. Percinoto C, Castro AM, Pinto LM. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpotomies employing calcium hydroxide and trioxide mineral aggregate. General Dentistry 2006;54(4):258‐61. [PUBMED: 16903198] - PubMed
Punwani 1993 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Punwani I, Fadavi S. The efficacy of pulpfixÆ glutaraldehyde pulpotomy agent for the treatment of vital primary teeth with carious pulp exposure. Journal of Dental Research 1993;72:212 (IADR Abs No 869).
Ram 2001 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Ram D, Moskovitz M, Fuks AB. Ferric sulfate versus formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: clinical and radiographic results. Journal of Dental Research 2001;80:1311 (Abs No 20).
Ravn 1968 {published data only}
    1. Ravn JJ, Svarrer M. A clinicoradiographic follow‐up study of coronal vital pulpotomy in 200 primary molars treated with zinc‐oxide‐eugenol paste [En klinisk‐radiologisk efterundersogelse af koronal vitalamputation i 200 primaere molarer, behandlet med zinkilte‐euge‐nol som amputationspasta]. Tandlaegebladet 1968;72(8):718‐26. [PUBMED: 5247171] - PubMed
Reddy 1996 {published data only}
    1. Reddy VVS, Fernandes. Clinical and radiological evaluation of zinc oxide‐eugenol and Maisto's paste as obturating materials in infected primary teeth ‐ nine months study. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 1996;14(2):39‐44. - PubMed
Redig 1968 {published data only}
    1. Redig DF. A comparison and evaluation of two formocresol pulpotomy technics utilizing "Buckley's" formocresol. Journal of Dentistry for Children 1968;35:22‐30. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Riccioli 1971 {published data only}
    1. Riccioli GA. Conservative therapy of the deciduous teeth [A proposito di terapie conservatrice dei decidui]. Mondo Odontostomatologico 1971;14(1):65‐7. [PUBMED: 5317205] - PubMed
Ripa 1971 {published data only}
    1. Ripa LW. Pulp therapy in live deciduous teeth [Terapeutica pulpar para dientes temporales vivos]. Fauchard 1971;2(6):114‐7. [PUBMED: 5288029] - PubMed
Ritwik 2003 {published data only}
    1. Ritwik P, Cuisia ZV, Dabir P, Musselman RJ. MTA pulpotomies in the primary molars of children: results after 3 years. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2003;13(Suppl 1):11.
Rivera 2003 {published data only}
    1. Rivera N, Reyes E, Mazzaoui S, Moron A. Pulpal therapy for primary teeth: formocresol vs electrosurgery: a clinical study. Journal of Dentistry for Children 2003;70(1):71‐3. [PUBMED: 12762614] - PubMed
Rocha 1999 {published data only}
    1. Rocha M, Baroni R, Santos L, Girardi K. Calcium hydroxide and MTA pulpotomies in primary teeth: one year results. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 1999;9(Suppl 1):102.
Rule 1966 {published data only}
    1. Rule DC, Winter GB. Root growth and apical repair subsequent to pulpal necrosis in children. British Dental Journal 1966;120(12):586‐90. [PUBMED: 5221182] - PubMed
Sargenti 1975 {published data only}
    1. Sargenti A. Rational root therapy of deciduous teeth with N2 [Die rationelle Wurzelbehandlung der Milchzahne mit N2]. Zahnarztliche Praxis 1975;26(9):198‐200. [PUBMED: 1057341] - PubMed
Sayegh 1967 {published data only}
    1. Sayegh FS, Reed AJ. Correlated clinical and histological evaluation of Hydrex in pulp therapy. Journal of Dentistry for Children 1967;34(6):471‐7. [PUBMED: 4864180] - PubMed
Sogbe de Agell 1989 {published data only}
    1. Sogbe de Agell R. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of deciduous molars with necrotic pulp treated with two concentrations of formocresol. Acta Odontológica Venezolana 1989;27(1):3‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Szabo 1968 {published data only}
    1. Szabo H, Beczner S, Matavovszky M. Dental pulp treatment with "N2" material in deciduous molars [Tejmolarisok pulpakezelese "N2" anayaggal]. Fogorvosi Szemle 1968;61(12):268‐70. [PUBMED: 5251838] - PubMed
Tsai 1993 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Tsai TP, Su HL, Tseng LH. Glutaraldehyde preparations and pulpotomy in primary molars. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology 1993;76(3):346‐50. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Velkova 1977 {published data only}
    1. Velkova A. Treatment of pulpitis in deciduous molars [Prispevek k problematice leceni docasnych pulpitickych molaru]. Ceskoslovenska Stomatologie 1977;77(4):277‐81. [PUBMED: 269022] - PubMed
Yakushiji 1969 {published data only}
    1. Yakushiji M, Sasamoto K, Imanishi T, Machida Y, Sekine N. Clinical study of vital pulpotomy with Calvital on deciduous teeth. Shikwa Gakuho 1969;69(2):271‐5. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Yildiz 2014 {published data only}
    1. Yildiz E, Tosun G. Evaluation of formocresol, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulfate, and MTA primary molar pulpotomies. European Journal of Dentistry 2014;8(2):234‐40. - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

CTRI/2011/06/001776 {published data only}
    1. CTRI/2011/06/001776. Root canal treatment in milk teeth using three root canal filling materials: a double‐blinded randomized controlled trial. Available from www.ctri.nic.in (accessed 28 November 2017).
NCT00802256 {published data only}
    1. Comparative evaluation of pulpotomized primary molars with mineral trioxide aggregate and new endodontic cement. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00802256 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT00972556 {published data only}
    1. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and 20% formocresol (FC) in pulpotomized human primary molars. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/ (accessed 5 June 2014).
NCT01010451 {published data only}
    1. Antimicrobial pulpotomy of primary molars. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01010451 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT01591278 {published data only}
    1. NCT01591278. MTA and biodentine in pulpotomized primary molars. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01591278 (accessed 28 November 2017).
NCT01733420 {published data only}
    1. NCT01733420. Biodentine versus white MTA pulpotomy. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01733420 (accessed 28 November 2017).
NCT02137967 {published data only}
    1. Sodium hypochlorite pulpotomies in primary molars: comparison with conventional 20% formocresol pulpotomies. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02137967 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT02201498 {published data only}
    1. Randomized clinical trial for primary molar pulpotomy, biodentine vs formocresol‐ZOE. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02201498 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT02286648 {published data only}
    1. Success rate evaluation of miniature pulpotomy with MTA in primary molars. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02286648 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT02298504 {published data only}
    1. Vital pulp treatment in primary teeth. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02298504 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT02393326 {published data only}
    1. Biodentine partial pulpotomy of pulpally exposed primary molars. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02393326 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT02702505 {published data only}
    1. Success and color stability of MTA pulpotomized primary molars: an RCT (MTA). Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02702505 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT02783911 {published data only}
    1. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) & ferric sulfate (FS) pulpotomies. Available from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02783911 (accessed 26 June 2017).
NCT02789423 {published data only}
    1. NCT02789423. Clinical & radiographical evaluation of the effect of dycal & biodentine in DPC in primary teeth. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02789423 (first received 3 June 2016).

Additional references

Al‐Shalan 1997
    1. Al‐Shalan TA, Erickson PR, Hardie NA. Primary incisor decay before age 4 as a risk factor for future dental caries. Pediatric Dentistry 1997;19(1):37‐41. [PUBMED: 9048412] - PubMed
Asgary 2014b
    1. Asgary S, Shirvani A, Fazlyab M. MTA and ferric sulfate in pulpotomy outcomes of primary molars: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2014;39(1):1‐8. [PUBMED: 25631717] - PubMed
CDC 2011
    1. USA National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Data & Statistics. Feature: Untreated Dental Caries (Cavities) in Children Ages 2‐19, United States, 2011. Available from www.cdc.gov/Features/dsUntreatedCavitiesKids/ (accessed 5 June 2014).
Coll 2015
    1. Coll J, Seale NS, Vargas K, Chi DL, Marghalani AA, Graham L. Protocol for a systematic review and meta‐analysis of vital pulp therapy for children with deep caries in the primary dentition. Pediatric Dentistry 2015;37(5):418‐21. [PUBMED: 26531083] - PubMed
Coll 2017
    1. Coll JA, Seale NS, Vargas K, Marghalani AA, Al Shamali S, Graham L. Primary tooth vital pulp therapy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Pediatric Dentistry 2017;39(1):16‐123. [PUBMED: 28292337] - PubMed
Fallahinejad 2008
    1. Fallahinejad Ghajari M, Mirkarimi M, Vatanpour M, Kharrazi Fard MJ. Comparison of pulpotomy with formocresol and MTA in primary molars: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Iranian Endodontic Journal 2008;3(3):45‐9. [PUBMED: 24146670] - PMC - PubMed
Ferreira 2007
    1. Ferreira FB, Torres SA, Rosa OP, Ferreira CM, Garcia RB, Marcucci MC, et al. Antimicrobial effect of propolis and other substances against selected endodontic pathogens. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics 2007;104(5):709‐16. [PUBMED: 17964476] - PubMed
Finucane 2012
    1. Finucane D. Rationale for restoration of carious primary teeth: a review. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2012;13(6):281‐92. [PUBMED: 23235127] - PubMed
Guideline Pulp Therapy 2014
    1. Clinical Affairs Committee ‐ Pulp Therapy Subcommittee. Guideline on Pulp Therapy for Primary and Immature Permanent Teeth. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry 2014:244‐52.
Guideline Pulp Therapy 2016
    1. Clinical Affairs Committee ‐ Pulp Therapy Subcommittee. Guideline on Pulp Therapy for Primary and Immature Permanent Teeth. Pediatric Dentistry 2016;38(6):280‐8. [PUBMED: 27931467] - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
IARC 2017
    1. World Health Organization. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/latest_classif.php (accessed 8 January 2018).
ICDAS II 2011
    1. International Caries Detection and Assessment System Coordinating Committee. Rationale and Evidence for the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS II), 2011. Available from www.icdas.org/downloads (accessed 5 June 2014).
Kaste 1992
    1. Kaste LM, Marianos D, Chang R, Phipps KR. The assessment of nursing caries and its relationship to high caries in the permanent dentition. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 1992;52(2):64‐8. [PUBMED: 1564693] - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Lewis 2009
    1. Lewis B. The obsolescence of formocresol. British Dental Journal 2009;207(11):525‐8. [PUBMED: 20010749] - PubMed
Lin 2014
    1. Lin PY, Chen HS, Wang YH, Tu YK. Primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Journal of Dentistry 2014;42(9):1060‐77. [PUBMED: 24513112] - PubMed
Loh 2004
    1. Loh A, O'Hoy P, Tran X, Charles R, Hughes A, Kubo K, et al. Evidence‐based assessment: evaluation of the formocresol versus ferric sulfate primary molar pulpotomy. Pediatric Dentistry 2004;26(5):401‐9. [PUBMED: 15460294] - PubMed
Marghalani 2014a
    1. Marghalani AA, Omar S, Chen JW. Clinical and radiographic success of mineral trioxide aggregate compared with formocresol as a pulpotomy treatment in primary molars: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 2014;145(7):714‐21. [PUBMED: 24982277] - PubMed
Milnes 2006
    1. Milnes AR. Persuasive evidence that formocresol use in pediatric dentistry is safe. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 2006;72(3):247‐8. [PUBMED: 16696891] - PubMed
Ng 2008
    1. Ng FK, Messer LB. Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy medicament: an evidence‐based assessment. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2008;9(2):58‐73. [PUBMED: 18534173] - PubMed
NHANES 2010
    1. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data (1999‐2004). Available from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/datalinkage/nh99+_mort_file_layout_public_2010.pdf (accessed 5 June 2014).
Peng 2006
    1. Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, Zhou X. Evaluation of the formocresol versus mineral trioxide aggregate primary molar pulpotomy: a meta‐analysis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics 2006;102(6):e40‐4. [PUBMED: 17138165] - PubMed
Peng 2007
    1. Peng L, Ye L, Guo X, Tan H, Zhou X, Wang C, et al. Evaluation of formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Endodontic Journal 2007;40(10):751‐7. [PUBMED: 17714467] - PubMed
Sarrami 2002
    1. Sarrami N, Pemberton MN, Thornhill MH, Theaker ED. Adverse reactions associated with the use of eugenol in dentistry. British Dental Journal 2002;193(5):257‐9. [PUBMED: 12353045] - PubMed
Sassone 2003
    1. Sassone LM, Fidel RA, Fidel SR, Dias M, Hirata RJ. Antimicrobial activity of different concentrations of NaOCl and chlorhexidine using a contact test. Brazilian Dental Journal 2003;14(2):99‐102. [PUBMED: 12964652] - PubMed
Schünemann 2011
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Selwitz 2007
    1. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet 2007;369(9555):51‐9. - PubMed
Shirvani 2014b
    1. Shirvani A, Hassanizadeh R, Asgary S. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. calcium hydroxide in primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review. Iranian Endodontic Journal 2014;9(2):83‐8. [PUBMED: 24688575] - PMC - PubMed
Shirvani 2014c
    1. Shirvani A, Asgary S. Mineral trioxide aggregate versus formocresol pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clinical Oral Investigations 2014;18(4):1023‐30. [PUBMED: 24452827] - PubMed
Smaïl‐Faugeron 2013
    1. Smaïl‐Faugeron V, Fron Chabouis H, Durieux P, Attal J P, Muller‐Bolla M, Courson F. Development of a core set of outcomes for randomized controlled trials with multiple outcomes ‐ example of pulp treatments of primary teeth for extensive decay in children. PLoS One 2013;8(1):e51908. - PMC - PubMed
Stringhini 2015a
    1. Stringhini Junior E, Vitcel ME, Oliveira LB. Evidence of pulpotomy in primary teeth comparing MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, and electrosurgery with formocresol. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2015;16(4):303‐12. [PUBMED: 25833280] - PubMed
Whitehead 2002
    1. Whitehead A. Meta‐Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. Chichester: Wiley, 2002.
Worthington 2015
    1. Worthington H, Clarkson J, Weldon J. Priority oral health research identification for clinical decision‐making. Evidence‐based Dentistry 2015;16(3):69‐71. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Nadin 2003
    1. Nadin G, Goel BR, Yeung CA, Glenny AM. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003220] - DOI - PubMed
Smaïl‐Faugeron 2014a
    1. Smaïl‐Faugeron V, Courson F, Durieux P, Muller‐Bolla M, Glenny AM, Fron Chabouis H. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003220.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms