S Nuvvula1, M Bandi1, S K Mallineni2. 1. Department of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Department of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. drmallineni@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of ferric sulphate (FS) compared to other pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through five databases (PubMed, Ovid®, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library and ProQuest) and only those papers which met the inclusion criteria were accepted. The quality of the studies used for systematic review was rated by two independent researchers based on Fuks and Papagiannoulis (Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 7:64-71, 2006) criteria and graded as A (38-42), B1 (32-37), B2 (25-31), C (≤ 24). Inter-examiner reliability was measured using Kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 1371 studies were available, of which only two studies full-text articles were included for quality assessment with an excellent inter-researcher agreement (k = 0.9). The comprehensive search revealed that, none of the 20 studies obtained grade A. Only three studies were graded as B1, 5 studies received grade B2 and 12 studies attained grade C. Only 4 prospective randomised clinical trials reported high success rate with FS compared to other materials. Remaining 14 studies revealed low success rate with FS compared to other pulpotomy medicaments. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the application of FS as a pulpotomy medicament in primary molars in the existing English literature. Hence, properly planned randomised clinical trials with large sample size and long-term follow up are needed to support FS as an effective pulpotomy medicament compared to other traditional and new medicaments.
AIM: To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of ferric sulphate (FS) compared to other pulpotomy medicaments in primary molars. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through five databases (PubMed, Ovid®, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library and ProQuest) and only those papers which met the inclusion criteria were accepted. The quality of the studies used for systematic review was rated by two independent researchers based on Fuks and Papagiannoulis (Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 7:64-71, 2006) criteria and graded as A (38-42), B1 (32-37), B2 (25-31), C (≤ 24). Inter-examiner reliability was measured using Kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 1371 studies were available, of which only two studies full-text articles were included for quality assessment with an excellent inter-researcher agreement (k = 0.9). The comprehensive search revealed that, none of the 20 studies obtained grade A. Only three studies were graded as B1, 5 studies received grade B2 and 12 studies attained grade C. Only 4 prospective randomised clinical trials reported high success rate with FS compared to other materials. Remaining 14 studies revealed low success rate with FS compared to other pulpotomy medicaments. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the application of FS as a pulpotomy medicament in primary molars in the existing English literature. Hence, properly planned randomised clinical trials with large sample size and long-term follow up are needed to support FS as an effective pulpotomy medicament compared to other traditional and new medicaments.