Histological evaluation of electrosurgery and formocresol pulpotomy techniques in primary teeth in dogs

The purpose of this study was to compare pulpal and periapical tissue reactions to electrosurgery versus formocresol pulpotomy techniques in the primary teeth of dogs. The study was conducted on 33 primary teeth of three mongrel dogs between the ages of one to three months. Each dog had three teeth treated by Formocresol Pulpotomy with Mechanical Coronal Pulp Removal (FC), three teeth treated by Electro-surgery Pulpotomy with Mechanical Coronal Pulp Removal (ES/MCPR), three teeth treated by Electro-surgery Pulpotomy with Electrosurgical Coronal Pulp Removal (ES/ECPR), and two teeth serving as untreated Controls. Dogs one, two and three were sacrificed performing the pulpotomies at two, four and six weeks, respectively. The pulp, periapical tissue and after surrounding bone were submitted to histolog-ical examination and the histological reaction was recorded. The results were fourteen out of 18 unfavor-able and zero out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the FC treated teeth. Six out of 18 unfavorable and one out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the ES/MCPR treated teeth. Nine out of 18 unfavorable and two out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the ES/ECPR treated teeth. One out of 18 unfavorable and zero out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the untreated Control teeth. The conclusion of this study is that of the three experimental groups, the teeth treated by Electrosurgery Pulpotomy with either Mechanical or Electrosurgical Coronal Pulp Removal exhibited less histopathological reaction than the teeth treated by Formocresol Pulpotomy.

1. Mack RB, Dean JA. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: a retrospective human study. J Dent Child 60: 107-14, 1993.

2. Shulman ER, McLver FT, Burkes EJ. Comparison of electro-surgery and formocresol as pulpotomy techniques in monkey primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 9: 189-194, 1987.

3. Reumping DR, Morton TH, Anderson MW. Electrosurgical pulpotomy in primates: a comparison with formocresol pulpo-tomy. Pediatr Dent 5: 14-18, 1983.

4. Sheller B, Morton TH. Electrosurgical pulpotomy : A pilot study in humans. J Endodont 13: 69-76, 1987.

5. Oztas N, Ulusu T, Gygur T, Cokpekin F. Comparison of electro-surgery and formocresol as pulpotomy techniques in dog pri-mary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 18: 285-289, 1994.

6. Shaw DW, Sheller B, Barrus BD, Morton TH. Electrosurgical pulpotomy: A 6-month study in primates. J Endodont 13: 500-505, 1987.

7. Florey L. General pathology. 4th Ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co., p 434, 1970.

8. Ranly DM, Lazzari EP.The formocresol pulpotomy:The past, the present, and the future. J Pedodont 2: 115-127, 1978.

9. Doyle WA, McDonald RE, Mitchell DF. Formocresol versus cal-cium hydroxide in pulpotomy. J Dent Child 29: 86-97, 1962.

10. Rolling I, Hasselgren G, Tronstad L. Morphologic and enzyme his-tochemical observations on the pulp of human primary molars 3 to 5 years after formocresol treatment. Oral Surg 42: 518-528, 1976.

11. Berger JE. Pulp tissue reaction to formocresol and zinc oxide eugenol. J Dent Child 32: 13-27, 1965.

12. Kennedy DB, El-kafrawy AH, Mitchell DF, Roche JR. Formocresol pulpotomy in teeth of dogs with induced pulpal and periapical pathosis. 40: 208-212, 1973.

13. Hicks MJ, Barr ES, Flaitz CM. Formocresol pulpotomies in pri-mary molars: A radiographic study in a pediatric dentistry prac-tice. J Pedodont 10: 331-339, 1986.

14. Beaver HA, Kopel HIM, Sabes WR. The effect of zinc oxide eugenol cement on a formocresolized pulp. J Dent child 33: 38 1-396, 1966.

15. Ogilvie AL, Ingle JI. An atlas of pulpal and periapical biology. Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, pp 265, 301, 320, 1965.

16. Spedding RH, Mitchell DF, McDonald RE. Formocresol and cal-cium hydroxide therapy. J Dent Res 44: 1023-1034, 1965.

17. Block RM, Lewis RD, Hirsch J, Coffey J, Langeland K. Systemic distribution of 14C-labeled paraformaldehyde incorporated within formocresol following pulpotomies in dogs. J Endodont 9: 176- 189, 1983.

18. Robbins SL, Cotran RS. Pathologic basis of disease. 2nd Ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co., p 76, 1979.

19. El-Kateb MA. A comparative study and evaluation of formocre-sol and glutaraldehyde pulpotomies on primary molars. PhD Thesis, Alexandria University, 1987.

20. Fuks AB, Bimstein E, Bruchim A. Radiographic and histologic evaluation of the effect of two concentrations of formocresol on pulpotomized primary and young permanent teeth in monkeys. Pediatr Dent 5: 9-13, 1983.

21. McDonald RE, Avery DR. Dentistry for the child and adoles-cent. 5th Ed. St. Louis: The CV Mosby Co., pp 448-449, 1987.