Sonia Sivadas1, Arathi Rao2, Srikant Natarajan3, Ramya Shenoy4, Suprabha Baranya Srikrishna5. 1. Postgraduate student, Department of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 2. Professor and Head, Department of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 3. Professor, Department of Oral Pathology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. 5. Professor, Department of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ferric sulfate and Laser has been used for conventional pulpotomy therapy. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpotomies using these have been done in numerous studies but there exists few studies analysing the histologic response of pulp to laser and ferric sulfate. AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare histological changes seen in the pulp following ferric sulfate and laser pulpotomy and compare these effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single blind in vivo study, consisting of 24 primary teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups based on the material to be used and subgrouped based on the time period (30 and 45 days) of evaluation. The teeth were extracted after the study period and tissue processing done and subjected to Haematoxylin and Eosin staining procedure. The tissues were evaluated for dentin bridge formation, quality of dentin formation in the bridges, location of dentin bridges, tissue reaction to the material, inflammatory cell response and necrosis. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS 20.0 software. Intragroup comparisons of the observed values were analysed using Chi-square test. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed non-significant difference between the two materials to produce reparative dentin and also the quality of dentin bridges formed in both the groups during both the observational periods. Majority of the samples in both ferric sulfate and laser group exhibited dentin bridge at the interface of the exposed pulp, bridging or attempting to bridge the site exposed to the pulpotomy material. The ability of the materials to evoke a foreign body and inflammatory cell responses in the pulpal tissue was not significant. All the samples of both the groups showed signs of necrosis with two samples of laser group showing severe necrosis in 45 days period. The difference between the groups in 30 days group was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Laser and ferric sulfate are found to be able to initiate dentin bridge at the interface between the pulp and the material but the quality of bridge formed was better in laser group. Laser group showed more macrophage infiltration, inflammatory cell infiltration and areas of necrosis compared to ferric sulfate group though not statistically significant.
INTRODUCTION:Ferric sulfate and Laser has been used for conventional pulpotomy therapy. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpotomies using these have been done in numerous studies but there exists few studies analysing the histologic response of pulp to laser and ferric sulfate. AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare histological changes seen in the pulp following ferric sulfate and laser pulpotomy and compare these effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single blind in vivo study, consisting of 24 primary teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups based on the material to be used and subgrouped based on the time period (30 and 45 days) of evaluation. The teeth were extracted after the study period and tissue processing done and subjected to Haematoxylin and Eosin staining procedure. The tissues were evaluated for dentin bridge formation, quality of dentin formation in the bridges, location of dentin bridges, tissue reaction to the material, inflammatory cell response and necrosis. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS 20.0 software. Intragroup comparisons of the observed values were analysed using Chi-square test. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed non-significant difference between the two materials to produce reparative dentin and also the quality of dentin bridges formed in both the groups during both the observational periods. Majority of the samples in both ferric sulfate and laser group exhibited dentin bridge at the interface of the exposed pulp, bridging or attempting to bridge the site exposed to the pulpotomy material. The ability of the materials to evoke a foreign body and inflammatory cell responses in the pulpal tissue was not significant. All the samples of both the groups showed signs of necrosis with two samples of laser group showing severe necrosis in 45 days period. The difference between the groups in 30 days group was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Laser and ferric sulfate are found to be able to initiate dentin bridge at the interface between the pulp and the material but the quality of bridge formed was better in laser group. Laser group showed more macrophage infiltration, inflammatory cell infiltration and areas of necrosis compared to ferric sulfate group though not statistically significant.