 |
| Title |
Formocresol Vs Direct Pulp Capping with Calcium Hydroxide in Primary Teeth |
| Clinical Question |
In children (4-5 years old) with carious primary molars, will the use of formocresol provide better long-term success with fewer side effects than traditional direct pulp capping with calcium hydroxide? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Formocresol is clinically successful and should be considered as an alternative to direct pulp capping with calcium hydroxide in carious primary molars. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 20831133 | Aminabadi/2010 | 120 teeth (84 children) | Randomized Controlled Trial | | Key results | The prevalence of side effects such as pain, sensitivity, and fistula were significantly higher in the calcium hydroxide group compared to the formocresol group (P < 0.05). The number of teeth exhibiting periapical/furcal radiolucency or external/internal root resorption was also higher in the calcium hydroxide group (P < 0.05). The clinical success rate of the formocresol group was 90% compared to the calcium hydroxide group (P < 0.05) with 61.7%, quoted from article. | |
| Evidence Search |
("formocresol"[Supplementary Concept] AND "Calcium Hydroxide"[Mesh]) AND "Dental Pulp Capping"[Mesh] ...view in PubMed |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The article reported a review of two different methods for treatment of carious primary molars, including 84 children ages 4-5 with a total of 120 teeth, comparing formocresol to calcium hydroxide in direct pulp capping. The authors reported a RCT with groups similar at the start, >80% completion rate. The groups of teeth were treated the same (60 receiving formocresol, 60 receiving calcium hydroxide), there was adequate follow-up (6 month recall for 2 years), compliance was adequate, recall bias unlikely, but could not determine if it was a double blind study. |
| Applicability |
The research is applicable to dentists in determining how to treat children with carious primary molars where either a direct pulp capping or formocresol is indicated. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(Endodontics) (Pediatric Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Formocresol, calcium hydroxide, direct pulp capping
|
| ID# |
765 |
| Date of submission: |
03/15/2011 |
| E-mail |
valent@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Jennifer Valent |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Adriana V. Green, DDS, MPH |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
greenav@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Krupa Patel, Adam Furman, Jaime Gomez (San Antonio, TX) on 01/06/2014
A PubMed search was performed on 1/6/2014 and no new evidence was found. As mentioned in the CAT Formocresol is still believed to be the treatment of choice over Calcium Hydroxide in relation to direct pulp capping. | |
|
|
