4.2 Article

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpectomy in primary teeth: a 18-months clinical randomized controlled trial

Journal

HEAD & FACE MEDICINE
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13005-017-0145-1

Keywords

Pulpectomy; Primary teeth; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol; Iodoform; Calcium hydroxide

Funding

  1. Funds Program for New Clinical Techniques and Therapies of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To avoid untoward changes when primary teeth are replaced by permanent teeth, resorption of the material used in primary teeth root canal filling should occur at the same rate as root resorption. The Aim of this study was to compare the success rates of a mixed primary root canal filling (MPRCF, ingredients: zinc oxide-eugenol [ZOE], iodoform, calcium hydroxide) to those of ZOE and Vitapex in pulpectomised primary molars. Methods: One hundred and sixty primary molars from 155 children (average age 5.88 +/- 1.27 years) underwent two-visit pulpectomy using one of the three materials. The clinical and radiographic findings at 6, 12 and 18 months were assessed. Results: At 6 and 12 months, the MPRCF and ZOE success rates were 100%. The Vitapex group showed clinical success rate and radiographic success rate of 100 and 94.5% at 6 months, and 80.4 and 60.7% at 12 months. The 18-month clinical success rates of the MPRCF, ZOE and Vitapex were 96.2, 92.2 and 71.4% and radiographic success rates were 92. 5, 88.2 and 53.6%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the success rates between MPRCF and Vitapex and no significant differences between MPRCF and ZOE. More MPRCF were resorbed at same rate with roots than ZOE and Vitapex. Early resorption of root filling resulted in more failure. Conclusions: The mixture of ZOE, iodoform and calcium hydroxide can be considered an effective root canal filling material in pulp involved primary teeth and had no adverse effect on tooth replacement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available