Formocresol versus Calcium Hydroxide Direct Pulp Capping of Human Primary Molars: TwoYear Follow-Up

Objectives: Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the premedicated direct pulp capping using formocresol(PDC) versus conventional direct pulp capping using calcium hydroxide (CDC) in human carious primary molars. Study design: A total of 120 vital primary molars with pinpoint exposure during caries removal in 84 patients aged 4-5 years were selected. In the PDC group (n = 60), 20% Buckley's formocresol solution, and in the CDC group (n = 60), calcium hydroxide powder were applied to the exposure sites followed by placement of zinc oxide-eugenol base. Teeth were restored with preformed stainless steel crowns. Clinical and radiographic evaluations of the treatment outcomes were performed at regular intervals of 6 and 12 months, respectively, for two years post-operatively. Results: The prevalence of spontaneous pain,sensitivity on percussion, and fistula were significantly higher in the CDC group compared to the PDC group (P < 0.05). The number of teeth exhibiting periapical/furcal radiolucency or external/internal root resorption was also higher in the CDC group (P < 0.05). The clinical success rate of the PDC was 90% compared to the 61.7% of the CDC (P < 0.05). The radiographic success rates of the PDC and CDC groups were 85% and 53.3%, respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusion: It seems formocresol premedicated direct pulp capping could safely be used as a substitute for conventional direct pulp capping.

Calcium hydroxide, direct pulp capping, formocresol, primary molar

1. Kopel HM. Considerations for the direct pulp capping in primary teeth: a review of the literature. ASDC J Dent Child, 59: 141–149, 1992.

2. Bodem O, Blumenshine S, Zeh D, Koch MJ. Direct pulp capping with mineral trioxide aggregate in a primary molar: a case report. Int J Pae-diatr Dent, 14: 346–379, 2004.

3. Fuks AB. Pulp therapy for the primary and young permanent dentitions. Dent Clin North Am, 44: 571–596, 2000.

4. Kopel HM. The pulp capping procedure in primary teeth “revisited”. ASDC J Dent Child, 64: 327–33, 1997.

5. Shiba H, Fujita T, Doi N, Nakamura S, Nakanishi K, Takemoto T, Hino T, Noshiro M, Kawamoto T, Kurihara H, Kato Y. Differential effects of various growth factors and cytokines on the syntheses of DNA, type I collagen, laminin, fibronectin, osteonectin/secreted protein, acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC), and alkaline phosphatase by human pulp cells in culture. J Cell Physiol, 174: 194–205, 1998.

6. Min KS, Kwon YY, Lee HJ, Lee SK, Kang KH, Lee SK, Kim EC. Effects of proinflammatory cytokines on the expression of mineraliza-tion markers and heme oxygenase-1 in human pulp cells. J Endod, 32: 39–43, 2006.

7. Schmitt D, Lee J, Bogen G. Multifaceted use of ProRoot MTA root canal repair material. Pediatr Dent, 23: 326–330, 2001.

8. Mathewson RJ, Primosch RE. Fundamentals of Pediatric Dentistry, 3rd ed. New York: Quintessence; 197–205, 1995.

9. Cameron AC, Widmer RP. Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry, 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 73–77, 2003.

10. Cox CF, Subay RK, Ostro E, Suzuki S, Suzuki SH. Tunnel defects in dentin bridges: their formation following direct pulp capping. Oper Dent, 21: 4–11, 1996.

11. Cox CF, Hafez AA, Akimoto N, Otsuki M, Suzuki S, Tarim B. Bio-compatibility of primer, adhesive and resin composite systems on non-exposed and exposed pulps of non-human primate teeth. Am J Dent, 11: 55–63, 1998.

12. Cox CF, Tarim B, Kopel H, Gurel G, Hafez A. Technique sensitivity: biological factors contributing to clinical success with various restora-tive materials. Adv Dent Res, 5: 85–90, 1998.

13. Toomarian L, Fekrazad R, Sharifi D, Baghaei M, Rahimi H, Eslami B. Histopathological evaluation of pulpotomy with Er,Cr:YSGG laser vs formocresol. Lasers Med Sci, 23: 443–450, 2008.

14. Waterhouse PJ, Nunn JH, Whitworth JM. An investigation of the rela-tive efficacy of Buckley’s Formocresol and calcium hydroxide in pri-mary molar vital pulp therapy. Br Dent J, 188: 32–36, 2000.

15. Garcia-Godoy F. Direct pulp capping and partial pulpotomy with diluted formocresol in primary molars. Acta Odontol Pediatr, 5: 57–61, 1984.

16. Ibrahim SM, Mitchel DF, Healy HG. A histologic study of the effects of formocresol in pulp capping of permanent teeth. Egypt Dent J, 16: 219–234, 1970.

17. Frank AL, Abou-Rass M, Glick DH. Changing trends in endodontics. J Am Dent Assoc, 96: 202, 1978.

18. Srinivasan V, Patchett CL, Waterhouse PJ. Is there life after Buckley’s Formocresol? Part I - A narrative review of alternative interventions and materials. Int J Paediatr Dent, 16: 117–127, 2006.

19. Teuscher GW, Zander HA. A preliminary report on pulpotomy. North-west University Graduates’ Bulletin, 39: 4, 1938.

20. Magnusson B. Therapeutic pulpotomy in primary molars – clinical and histological follow up. I. Calcium hydroxide paste as a wound dressing. Odontol Revy, 21: 415– 431, 1970.

21. Schröder U. A 2-year follow-up of primary molars pulpotomized with a gentle technique and capped with calcium hydroxide. Scand J Dent Res 1978; 39: 273–278.

22. Schröder U, Szpringer-Nodzak M, Janicha J, Waci ska M, Budny J, Mlosek K. A one-year follow-up of partial pulpotomy and calcium hydroxide capping in primary molars. Endod Dent Traumatol, 3: 304–306, 1987.

23. Landau MJ, Johnsen DC. Pulpal responses to ferric sulfate in monkeys. J Dent Res, 167: 215–219, 1988.

24. Heilig J, Yates J, Siskin M, McKnight J, Turner J. Calcium hydroxide pulpotomy for primary teeth: a clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc, 108: 775–778, 1984.