Comparative evaluation of formocresol and electrosurgical pulpotomy in human primary teeth- An in vivo study
Kritika Gupta1, Vinay Bal Singh Thakur2, Nitika Gupta3, Archana Sharma4, Atika Mahajan5, Kanika Gupta6
1 Department of Pedodontics, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, India
2 Department of Pedodontics, Himachal Dental College, Sunder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, India
4 Department of Pedodontics, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India
5 Department of Periodontics, Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Centre, Sunder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh, India
6 Department of Pedodontics, Post Graduate Student, Himachal Dental College, Sunder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh, India
Dr. Kritika Gupta
Department of Pedodontics, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Introduction: Vital pulpotomy is defined as the surgical amputation of the coronal portion of exposed pulp followed by the placement of medicament over the remaining radicular pulp thereby maintaining the vitality of the remaining radicular pulp.
Aim and Objective: The aim of this study was to compare clinically and radiographically the success rate of formocresol (FC) and electrosurgical pulpotomy in human primary teeth.
Materials and Methods: In this study, thirty primary molars between 3 and 8 years of age were taken from the Outpatient Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. Teeth were randomly divided into two groups of fifteen teeth each based on type of pulpotomy performed (15 receiving electrosurgical pulpotomy and 15 receiving FC pulpotomy). Under rubber dam isolation, pulpotomy was performed in both the groups and teeth were restored with stainless steel crowns. The patients were recalled at 3, 6, and 9 months for clinical and radiographic follow-up. The data were evaluated using Chi-square test.
Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The overall clinical success of FC was 100%, whereas that of electrocautery was 96% at 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up. The overall radiographic success of FC was 100%, 93%, and 93% and that of electrocautery was 97%, 87%, and 77% at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively. The teeth considered as failures were subjected to further treatment.
Conclusion: There was statistically no significant difference in the pre-operative clinical and radiographic features between the two groups with the p>.05 as statistically analysed using chi-square test. Further studies using larger samples and longer evaluation periods are recommended.