Concentration of formocresol used by pediatric dentists in primary tooth pulpotomy

Department of Pediatric Dentistry

Resident’s Name:Murphy Program: Lutheran Medical Center - Providence
Article title: Concentration of formocresol used by pediatric dentists in primary tooth pulpotomy
Author(s): Silvia King, DDS, Alton McWorter, DDS MS, et al
Journal: Ped. Dent
Year. Volume (number). Page #’s: 2002. 24:2. 157-160
Major topic: Formocresol concentrations being used by PD
Minor topic(s): Dilution of formo
Main Purpose: To determine the concentration of formocresol used for primary tooth pulpotomy by private practicing PD who use formo.

Overview of method of research:
806 surveys were sent out randomly to active members of the AAPD. The survey questions asked about the PD use of formo, what concentration they use if they use it, and how they dilute it (if they do).

Findings: 422 (52%) responded to the survey. 84% of PD acknowledged using formo. The two main formulations of formo were Buckley’s (19% formo), and a Standard formation (48.5%). Of those who use formo, 69% use full strength, 27% diluted, and 4% don’t know. Those who dilute their formo either buy it that way, dilute it themselves, or have the pharmacy dilute it for them. Interestingly, some of the PD who say they ‘dilute’ their formo consider diluting to be dabbing a formo soaked cotton pellet (FALSE). Also, some of the PD who think they are buying and using diluted formo are mistaken, they are using full strength. This means that 78% of practitioners using formo are using full strength instead of 69%.

Key points/Summary:
Diluted concentration is 1:5 ratio.
Most PD still use full strength formo

Assessment of Article:
Short. To the point. Good.

Clinical Evaluation of Root Canal Obturation Methods in Primary Teeth

Resident: Roberts

Date: 10/13/10

Article title: Clinical Evaluation of Root Canal Obturation Methods in Primary Teeth

Journal: Pediatric Dentistry

Volume: 28:1 Pages 39-47

Year: 2006

Purpose:

To evaluate two differing obturation techniques, their effectiveness and success rates in primary molars

Methods:

50 pulpectomies and their respective filling materials were performed on 24 children( ages 4.5 to 9). Two varying methods were used to obturate the cleaned canals: one in which a lentulo spiral was attached to a slow speed handpiece and the other which consisted of a lentulo spiral that was hand held to perform the same task.

Criteria for this study:

Teeth were include if they:

1. History of spontaneous pain
2. Presence of a sinus tract
3. Periapical bone swelling
4. Continuous bleeding after amputation of coronal pulp tissue
5. No pulp tissue remaining when the pulp chamber was accessed
6. Pus discharge from the canal
7. Evidence of a radicular pathologic lesion with or without caries involvement
8. Periapical or inter-radicular radiolucency

Teeth were excluded if they:

1. Were unrestorable
2. Had pathologic lesion that extended to the tooth germ of the succedaneous tooth
3. Showed signs of extensive internal/ external pathological root resorption

Success rates and results at 6 month follow up

Teeth obturated by lentulo in slow speed handpiece: clinical 96%, radiographic 91%

Teeth obturated by lentulo but performed manually by hand: clinical 92%, radiographic 72%

Combined total of 94% clinical and 81% radiographical success rate

The success were also analyzed by the quality of the obturation

56% (28) were optimally filled, 32% (16)were underfilled, and 12% (6)were overfilled.

Optimal: clinical 92%, radiographic 92%

Underfilled: clinical 94%, radiographic 56%

Overfilled: clinical 100%, radiographic 100%

Conclusion:

There was no statistical significance between the hand held or the handpiece mounted lentulo spiral. Optimally and over filled root canals showed a statistically higher success rate compared to underfilled root canals.

Assessment: His conclusions based on quality of fill and success rates differed from those he quoted, but he didn’t offer up a reason as to why and I would have liked to have had an insight to perhaps why his conclusion was different than others who have performed similar research.