Two-year outcomes of primary molar ferric sulfate pulpotomy and root canal therapy

Pediatric Dentistry

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 97-102

  Casas, Michael J ^b,c   Layug, Michael A ^c   Kenny, David J ^a,c   Johnston, Douglas H ^b,c   Judd, Peter L ^b,c  

^a Department of Dental Research and Graduate Studies ^*  (United States)

^b HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ferric sulfate; Primary molars; Pulpotomy; Root canal therapy

Indexed keywords

FERRIC ION; FERRIC SULFATE;

ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DENTAL PULP EXPOSURE; FEMALE; FERRIC COMPOUNDS; HUMANS; MALE; MOLAR; PULPOTOMY; ROOT CANAL THERAPY; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0038239500     PISSN: 01641263     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Primosch R, Glomb T, Jerrell R. Primary tooth pulp therapy as taught in pediatric dental programs in the United States. Pediatr Dent. 1997;19:118-122.
2. Judd PL, Kenny DJ. Formocresol concerns: a review. J Can Dent Assoc. 1987;53:401-404.
3. Lewis BB, Chestner SB. Formaldehyde in dentistry: a review of mutagenic and carcinogenic potential. J Am Dent Assoc. 1981;103:429-434.
4. Ranly DM, Garcfa-Godoy F. Current and potential pulp therapies for primary and young permanent teeth. J Dent. 2000;28:153-161.
5. Fuks AB, Holan G, Davis JM, Eidelman E. Ferric sulfate versus dilute formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars: long-term follow-up. Pediatr Dent. 1997;19:327-330.
6. Fei AL, Udin RD, Johnson R. A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 1991; 13:327-332.
7. Smith NL, Seale NS, Nunn ME. Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: a retrospective study. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22:192-199.
8. Ibricevic H, Al-Jame Q. Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: 20-month clinical follow-up. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2000;24:269-272.
9. Yacobi R, Kenny DJ, Judd PL, Johnston DH. Evolving primary pulp therapy techniques. J Am Dent Assoc. 1991;122:83-85.
10. Payne RG, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Judd PL. Two-year outcome study of zinc oxide-eugenol root canal treatment for vital primary teeth. J Can Dent Assoc. 1993;59:528-536.
11. Fleiss JL. In: StatisticalMethods for Rates and Proportions. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1981:212-236.
12. Willard RM. Radiographic changes following for mocresol pulpotomy in primary molars. J Dent Child. 1976;43:414-415.
13. Berger JE. Pulp tissue reaction to formocresol and zinc oxide-eugenol. J Dent Child. 1965;32:13-28.
14. Hansen HP, Ravn JJ, Ulrich D. Vital pulpotomy in primary molars: a clinical and histologic investigation of the effect of zinc oxide-eugenol cement and Ledermix. Scand J Dent Res. 1971;79:13-23.
15. Lagakos SW. In: Medical Uses of Statistics. 2nd ed. Bailar JC, Mosteller F, eds. Boston, Mass: NEJM Books; 1992:281-291.