medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2013, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2013; 70 (5)

The success and failure of pulpotomy treatment in permanent dental organs

Caballero GELC, Rocha NML, Martínez SAM

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 246-250
PDF size: 155.69 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Aim: To determine the efficiency of pulpotomy treatment in permanent teeth as an option for preserving the dental organs of economically disadvantaged patients with compromised pulp tissue. Study design: Descriptive longitudinal study in which patients aged between 6 and 20 years of both sexes were recruited, all of whom required root canal treatment of a permanent tooth and whose only option, due to their financial situation, was extraction. All patients or their guardians signed an informed consent form agreeing to participate in the study. Clinical histories were compiled for all of the patients included and a clinical and radiographic assessment of the tooth to be treated was carried out. A complete pulpotomy was then performed on the tooth followed by restoration with a glass ionomer. The treated teeth were evaluated after 6 months. Descriptive statistics and frequency tables were used to assess the success or failure of the pulpotomy treatment. Results: Of the 25 patients selected, 8 (32%) were female and 17 (68%) male. Their ages ranged from 8 to 18 years old. After six months, the evaluation of pain and inflammation showed 20 asymptomatic teeth and 5 symptomatic teeth (χ2 = 6.2; p = 0.01). Radiographic evaluation found 22 of these teeth were healthy, whilst 3 showed signs of periapical lesion (χ2 = 10.2; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Pulpotomy is an effective alternative in root canal treatment. In young patients, it can potentially prevent tooth loss by giving the tooth’s root the chance to fully develop or, where appropriate, by allowing the patient to preserve their teeth until they can afford to undergo conventional root canal treatment.


REFERENCES

  1. Ingle JI, Taintor JF. Endodontia. 3ª ed. Río de Janeiro, Brasil: Guanabara Koogan; 1989: p. 119.

  2. Witzel A. Guideline on the therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. Reference Manual, Clinical Guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). 1991; 34 (6): 222-229.

  3. Catanzaro SA, Percinoto C. Effect of some endodontic materials on the influx of macrophages and multinucleated giant cell development in experimental granulomas. J Endod. 1984; 10 (3): 101-104.

  4. Odabaş ME, Alaçam A, Sillelioğlu H, Deveci C. Clinical and radiographic success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate and ferric sulphate pulpotomies performed by dental students. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012; 13 (2): 118-122.

  5. Kirzioglu Z, Gungor OE, Ciftci ZZ. Evaluation of the restoration success of endodontic therapy of the primary molars. Eur J Dent. 2011; 5 (4): 415-422.

  6. Seale NS. Indirect pulp therapy: an alternative to pulpotomy in primary teeth. Tex Dent J. 2010; 127 (11): 1175-1183.

  7. Simon S, Perard M, Zanini M, Smith AJ, Charpentier E, Djole SX. Should pulp chamber pulpotomy be seen as a permanent treatment? Some preliminary thoughts. Int Endod J. 2013; 46 (1): 79-87.

  8. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ. Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis using biomaterials: A multi-center randomized controlled trial. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013; 71 (1): 130-136.

  9. Gudkina J, Mindere A, Locane G, Brinkmane A. Review of the success of pulp exposure treatment of cariously and traumatically exposed pulps in immature permanent incisors and molars. Stomatologia. 2012; 14 (3): 71-80.

  10. Juárez N, Benítez G. Apicogénesis, apicoformación y maturogénesis: conceptos y técnica. Med Oral. 2006; 8 (3): 129-138.

  11. Castellanos JL, Díaz LM, Gay O. Medicina en odontología: Manejo dental de pacientes con enfermedades sistémicas. 2ª ed. México: Editorial Manual Moderno; 2002: p. 448.

  12. Maldonado MB. Lesiones dentarias: valoración del daño odontológico. Cuadernos de Medicina Forense. 2005; 4: 53-65.

  13. Camp JH, Fuks AB. Pediatric endodontics: endodontic treatment for the primary and young permanent dentition. In: Cohen S, Hargreaves KM, eds. Pathways of the pulp. 9th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2006: 834-859.

  14. DeRosa TA. A retrospective evaluation of pulpotomy as an alternative to extraction. Gen Dent. 2006; 54 (1): 37-40.

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

  16. Mass E, Zilberman U. 20 Long-term radiologic pulp evaluations after partial pulpotomy in young permanent molars. Quintessence Int. 2011; 42 (7): 547-554.

  17. Howley B, Seale NS, McWhorter AG, Kerins C, Boozer KB, Lindsey D. Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy for carious vital primary incisors: randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Dent. 2012; 34 (5): 112-119.

  18. Chueh LH, Chiang CP. Histology of irreversible pulpitis premolars treated with mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy. Oper Dent. 2010; 35 (3): 370-374.

  19. Eghbal MJ, Asgary S, Baglue RA, Parirokh M, Ghoddusi J. MTA pulpotomy of human permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis. Aust Endod J. 2009; 35 (1): 4-8.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com