SpringerLink
Log in

The comparison of calcium hydroxide + biostimulation, calcium hydroxide, formocresol, and MTA pulpotomies without biostimulation in primary teeth: 12-months clinical and radiographic follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Lasers in Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study has aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy (CH) with biostimulation (PBMT) and compare them to that of CH, formocresol (FC), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomies without PBMT in primary molars. A total of 172 pulpotomies were performed on primary first or second mandibular molars in 94 children who were 5–8 years old. The pulpotomy procedure was performed with four different techniques. In the PBMT group, before the CH placement, 820-nm diode laser radiation was applied to each pulp-stump for 12 s (10 mW, 2.5 J/cm2). The clinical (lack of spontaneous pain, abscess or fistula, and pathological mobility) and radiographic success (lack of periapical/furcal lesions and internal/external resorption) were recorded at 6 and 12 months. The data was statistically evaluated. p value < 0.05 was considered as significant. After 12 months, the clinical and radiographic success rate (a tooth with at least one of the findings was considered unsuccessful) was 97%/92% for FC and 97%/95%, 87%/73%, and 71%/45% for MTA, CH + PBMT, and CH, respectively. There was no significant difference between the CH + PBMT and the other groups in clinical success, while a significant difference was found between CH and FC, MTA groups. In radiographic success, there was a significant difference between the CH and the other groups. No significant difference was found between the 6th- and 12th-month results in clinical success for all the groups. A decrease in success over time was seen only in the CH group for radiographic results. CH without PBMT showed the worst clinical and radiographic results among the groups. CH + PBMT showed similar clinical success compared to the MTA and FC groups. In radiographic success, CH + PBMT showed higher success compared to CH, but this success was not high as compared to MTA and FC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2014) Pulp therapy for primary and ımmature permanent teeth. Ref Man Pediatr Dent 353–61.

  2. Oliveira TM, Moretti ABS, Sakai VT, Lourenço Neto N, Santos CF, Machado MAAM et al (2013) Clinical, radiographic and histologic analysis of the effects of pulp cap** materials used in pulpotomies of human primary teeth. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 14(2):65–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fuks AB (2005) Pulp therapy for the primary dentition. In: Pinkham J, Casamassimo P, Fields H, McTigue D, Nowak A, editors. Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence. St.Louis 329–52.

  4. Uloopi KS, Vinay C, Ratnaditya A, Satya Gopal A, Mrudula KJN, Chandrasekhar Rao R (2016) Clinical evaluation of low level diode laser application for primary teeth pulpotomy. J Clin Diagnostic Res 10(1):67–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ansari G, Morovati SP, Asgary S (2018) Evaluation of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a randomized controlled trial. Iran Endod J 13(1):7–12

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Durmus B, Tanboga I (2014) In vivo evaluation of the treatment outcome of pulpotomy in primary molars using diode laser, formocresol, and ferric sulphate. Photomed Laser Surg 32(5):289–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sajadi FS, Jalali F, Khademi M (2020) Ferric sulfate versus calcium-enriched mixture cement in pulpotomy of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr 21:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bandi M, Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S (2017) Clinical applications of ferric sulfate in dentistry: a narrative review. J Conserv Dent 20(4):278–281

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nuvvula S, Bandi M, Mallineni SK (2018) Efficacy of ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy medicament in primary molars: an evidence based approach. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 19(6):439–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fernandes AP, Lourenço Neto N, Teixeira Marques NC, Silveira Moretti AB, Sakai VT, Cruvinel Silva T et al (2015) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the use of low-level laser therapy in vital pulp of primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 25(2):144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moretti ABS, Sakai VT, Oliveira TM, Fornetti APC, Santos CF, Machado MAAM et al (2008) The Effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium hydroxide and formocresol for pulpotomies in primary teeth. Int Endod J 41(7):547–555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Marques NCT, Neto NL, de Rodini C, O, Fernandes AP, Sakai VT, Machado MAAM, et al (2015) Low-level laser therapy as an alternative for pulpotomy in human primary teeth. Lasers Med Sci 30(7):1815–1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kotlow L (2016) Lasers in pediatric dentistry. In: Convissar RA, editor. Principles and Practice of Laser Dentistry. 2nd Editio. New York: Elsevier 182–202.

  14. Elson N, Foran D (2015) Low level laser therapy in modern dentistry. Periodontics Prosthodont 1(1):10–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sun G, Tunér J (2004) Low-level laser therapy in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 48(4):1061–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ball KA, Castello PR, Poyton RO (2011) Low ıntensity light stimulates nitrite-dependent nitric oxide synthesis but not oxygen consumption by cytochrome C oxidase: ımplications for phototherapy. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 102(3):182–191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamblin MR (2008) The role of nitric oxide in low level light therapy. Mech Low-Light Ther III 6846 (February 2008):684602.

  18. Carroll JD, Milward MR, Cooper PR, Hadis M, Palin WM (2014) Developments in low level light therapy (LLLT) for dentistry. Dent Mater 30(5):465–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bahman S, Sara G, Somayeh H, Parvin T, Kalhori KAM (2020) Combined effects of calcium hydroxide and photobiomodulation therapy on apexogenesis of ımmature permanent teeth in dogs. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 207:111867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Frankl S, Shiere F, Fogels H (1999) Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? ASDC J Dent Child 2:150–163

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dean JA, Avery DR, McDonald RE (2016) McDonald’s and Avery’s dentistry for the child and adolescent, 10th edn. Elsevier Health Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  22. Olivi G, Margolis FS, Genovese MD (2011) Laser history and physics. In: Olivi G, Margolis FS, Genovese MD, editors. Pediatric Laser Dentistry : A User’s Guide. Hanover Park: Quintessence Pub 3–14.

  23. VahidGolpayegani M, Ansari G, Tadayon N (2010) Clinical and radiographic success of low level lasertherapy (LLLT) on primary molars pulpotomy. Res J Biol Sci 5(1):51–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dhar V, Marghalani AA, Crystal YO, Kumar A, Ritwik P, Tulunoglu O et al (2017) Use of vital pulp therapies in primary teeth with deep caries lesions. Pediatr Dent 39(5):146–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gupta G, Rana V, Srivastava N, Chandna P (2015) Laser pulpotomy–an effective alternative to conventional techniques: a 12 months clinicoradiographic study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 8(1):18–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huth KC, Hajek-Al-Khatar N, Wolf P, Ilie N, Hickel R, Paschos E (2012) Long-term effectiveness of four pulpotomy techniques: 3-year randomised controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig 16(4):1243–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ansari G, Safi Aghdam H, Taheri P, GhazizadehAhsaie M (2018) Laser pulpotomy—an effective alternative to conventional techniques—a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci 33(8):1621–1629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nematollahi H, SarrafShirazi A, Mehrabkhani M, Sabbagh S (2018) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of laser pulpotomy in vital primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 19(4):205–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Golpayegani M, Ansari G, Tadayon N, Shams S, Mir M (2009) Low-level laser therapy for pulpotomy treatment of primary molars. J Dent Tehran Univ Med Sci 6(4):168–174

    Google Scholar 

  30. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (2020) Pulp therapy for primary and ımmature permanent teeth-latest revision. Ref Man Pediatr Dent 399–407.

  31. Vargas KG, Fuks AB, Peretz B(2016) Pulpotomy techniques: cervical (traditional) and partial. In: Pediatric Endodontics: Current Concepts in Pulp Therapy for Primary and Young Permanent Teeth 51–70.

  32. Enwemeka CS, Parker JC, Dowdy DS, Harkness EE, Sanford LE, Woodruff LD (2004) The efficacy of low-power lasers in tissue repair and pain control: a meta-analysis study. Photomed Laser Surg 22(4):323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kreisler M, Christoffers AB, Willershausen B, D’Hoedt B (2003) Effect of low-level GaAlAs laser ırradiation on the proliferation rate of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts: an ın vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 30(4):353–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Toomarian L, Fekrazad R, Tadayon N, Ramezani J, Tunér J (2012) Stimulatory effect of low-level laser therapy on root development of rat molars: a preliminary study. Lasers Med Sci 27(3):537–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Krothapalli Niranjani, Prasad MG, Vasa AAK, Divya G, Thakur MS, Saujanya K (2015) Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using mineral trioxide aggregate (®), laser and biodentine(TM)- an ın vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 25;9(4):ZC35–7

  36. Agamy H, Bakry N, Mounir M, Avery D (2004) Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp-cap** agents in pulpotomized primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 26(4):302–309

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jabbarifar SE, DD AAK, Ghasemi D (2004) Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy versus mineral trioxide aggregate in human primary molar tooth. J Res Med Sci 6(6):304–7

  38. Noorollahian H (2008) Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp medicaments for pulpotomies in primary molars. Br Dent J 204(11):E20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Naik S, Hegde A (2005) Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy agent in primary molars: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 23(1):13–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Alaçam A, Odabaş ME, Tüzüner T, Sillelioǧlu H, Baygin Ö (2009) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of calcium hydroxide and formocresol pulpotomies performed by dental students. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108(5):18–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Waterhouse PJ, Nunn JH, Whitworth JM (2000) An ınvestigation of the relative efficacy of Buckley’s formocresol and calcium hydroxide in primary molar vital pulp therapy. Br Dent J 188(1):32–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Winters J, Cameron A, Widmer R (2013) Pulp therapy for primary and ımmature permanent teeth. In: Cameron A, Widmer R, editors. Handbook of Clinical Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry. St. Louis: Wiley-Blackwell 103–22.

  43. Guelmann M, Fair J, Bimstein E (2005) Permanent versus temporary restorations after emergency pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 27(6):478–481

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Can Kaya, Ülkü Şermet Elbay, Mesut Elbay & Gül Uçar

Authors
  1. Can Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ülkü Şermet Elbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mesut Elbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gül Uçar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ülkü Şermet Elbay.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the Ethics Committee of Kocaeli University (#104) and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from legal guardians.

Consent for publication

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaya, C., Elbay, Ü.Ş., Elbay, M. et al. The comparison of calcium hydroxide + biostimulation, calcium hydroxide, formocresol, and MTA pulpotomies without biostimulation in primary teeth: 12-months clinical and radiographic follow-up. Lasers Med Sci 37, 2545–2554 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03536-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03536-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation