PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of ferric sulfate pulpotomy (FS) and primary tooth root canal therapy (RCT) in vital pulps of deciduous molars exposed to caries lesions. METHODS:A total of 291 molars were treated in 130 children. One hundred and eighty-two molars receivedFS and 109 received RCT by random selection. RESULTS: At 3-year re-assessment, 29 molars (15 FS, 14 RCT) were available for clinical and radiographic examination. Two independent pediatric dentists evaluated periapical radiographs of the treated molars. Molars were classified 1 of 4 outcomes: (1) N = normal treated molar; (2) H = nonpathologic radiographic change present; (3) P(o) = pathologic change present, follow-up in 6 months; (4) P(x) = pathologic change present extract immediately. Survival analysis was applied. A good level of agreement between raters was found for molars with outcome P(x) (K = 0.79). No difference in radiographic outcomes was demonstrated 3 years after treatment (chi2 = 1.4). Survival analysis demonstrated a 3-year survival probability of 0.62 for FS-treated molars and 0.92 for RCT molars. Survival of RCT molars was significantly greater than for FS molars (Wilcoxon: P = .01; log-rank: P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:RCT-treated molars demonstrated significantly greater survival than FS-treated molars 3 years after treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of ferric sulfate pulpotomy (FS) and primary tooth root canal therapy (RCT) in vital pulps of deciduous molars exposed to caries lesions. METHODS: A total of 291 molars were treated in 130 children. One hundred and eighty-two molars received FS and 109 received RCT by random selection. RESULTS: At 3-year re-assessment, 29 molars (15 FS, 14 RCT) were available for clinical and radiographic examination. Two independent pediatric dentists evaluated periapical radiographs of the treated molars. Molars were classified 1 of 4 outcomes: (1) N = normal treated molar; (2) H = nonpathologic radiographic change present; (3) P(o) = pathologic change present, follow-up in 6 months; (4) P(x) = pathologic change present extract immediately. Survival analysis was applied. A good level of agreement between raters was found for molars with outcome P(x) (K = 0.79). No difference in radiographic outcomes was demonstrated 3 years after treatment (chi2 = 1.4). Survival analysis demonstrated a 3-year survival probability of 0.62 for FS-treated molars and 0.92 for RCT molars. Survival of RCT molars was significantly greater than for FS molars (Wilcoxon: P = .01; log-rank: P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: RCT-treated molars demonstrated significantly greater survival than FS-treated molars 3 years after treatment.