PURPOSE: This study was performed to retrospectively evaluate treatment of deep caries in primary molars with formocresol pulpotomy (FP) and indirect pulp therapy (IPT). METHODS: 133 primary molars with deep caries approaching the pulp were treated with FP (N = 78) or IPT (N = 55) and followed 2-7 years. All IPTs received immediate stainless steel crowns (SSCs); 61 FPs got an immediate SSC, 13 an intermediate restorative material (IRM), and 4 amalgam. Thirteen IPTs and 25 FPs had pre-operative pain compatible with a diagnosis of reversible pulpitis. Treatment notes and radiographs were independently assessed. RESULTS: Overall IPT success was 93% (51/55) versus 74% (58/78) for FP. Molars with pain compatible with a diagnosis of reversible pulpitis were successfully treated by IPT 85% (11/13) versus 76% (19/25) for FP. FP-treated molars exhibited earlier exfoliation 38% (30/78), while all IPT molars exhibited normal exfoliation. FPs receiving immediate SSCs had 50/61 (82%) succeed; FPs restored with an IRM temporary succeeded 5/13 (39%), amalgam 3/4 (75%). CONCLUSIONS: IPT success was significantly higher than FP (P = 0.01) in the treatment of deep caries. Both IPT and FP were successful in treating teeth with pain compatible with the diagnosis of reversible pulpitis. FP significantly hastened the exfoliation of pulpotomized primary molars (P = 0.001). IPT in primary teeth can be successfully used in a one step procedure. SSCs placed immediately after FP significantly increased FP success vs. FP followed by IRM temporary (P = 0.01).
PURPOSE: This study was performed to retrospectively evaluate treatment of deep caries in primary molars with formocresol pulpotomy (FP) and indirect pulp therapy (IPT). METHODS: 133 primary molars with deep caries approaching the pulp were treated with FP (N = 78) or IPT (N = 55) and followed 2-7 years. All IPTs received immediate stainless steel crowns (SSCs); 61 FPs got an immediate SSC, 13 an intermediate restorative material (IRM), and 4 amalgam. Thirteen IPTs and 25 FPs had pre-operative pain compatible with a diagnosis of reversible pulpitis. Treatment notes and radiographs were independently assessed. RESULTS: Overall IPT success was 93% (51/55) versus 74% (58/78) for FP. Molars with pain compatible with a diagnosis of reversible pulpitis were successfully treated by IPT 85% (11/13) versus 76% (19/25) for FP. FP-treated molars exhibited earlier exfoliation 38% (30/78), while all IPT molars exhibited normal exfoliation. FPs receiving immediate SSCs had 50/61 (82%) succeed; FPs restored with an IRM temporary succeeded 5/13 (39%), amalgam 3/4 (75%). CONCLUSIONS:IPT success was significantly higher than FP (P = 0.01) in the treatment of deep caries. Both IPT and FP were successful in treating teeth with pain compatible with the diagnosis of reversible pulpitis. FP significantly hastened the exfoliation of pulpotomized primary molars (P = 0.001). IPT in primary teeth can be successfully used in a one step procedure. SSCs placed immediately after FP significantly increased FP success vs. FP followed by IRM temporary (P = 0.01).
Authors: Nicola P T Innes; David Ricketts; Lee Yee Chong; Alexander J Keightley; Thomas Lamont; Ruth M Santamaria Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-31