Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Radiographic Success of Pulpectomy Done with and Without Dental Operating Microscope in Pediatric Patients: An Study

Overview

Journal Int J Clin Pediatr Dent

Specialty Pediatrics

Date 2023 Dec 11

PMID 38078029

Authors

Gyanendra Kumar

Ferah Rehman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: To assess the clinical and radiographic success of conventional pulpectomy and pulpectomy done under an endodontic microscope over a period of 12 months.

Materials And Methods: The study was conducted as a single-blinded, parallel-group prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trial. The enrollment of the study involved the assessment of 258 deciduous molars for eligibility as per the inclusion criteria. A total of 104 teeth were allocated to each group, that is, group I (conventional pulpectomy) and group II (pulpectomy under microscope). However, due to unavoidable circumstances during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 98 and 90 teeth were treated in each group, respectively. Pulpectomy in both groups was done using standard protocol except for the use of an endodontic microscope in group II. The clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed by an independent blinded observer and analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.

Results: The clinical success at 6 months is 95.7 and 96.5%, and at 12 months is 96.6 and 97.7% in groups I and II, respectively. The radiographic success at 6 months is 93.5 and 95.4%, and at 12 months is 95.5 and 98.8% in groups I and II, respectively. The overall success rates of both groups with statistically no significant differences.

Conclusion: The present study concludes comparable results are achieved using an endodontic microscope to conventional pulpectomy without magnification.

How To Cite This Article: Kumar G, Rehman F. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Radiographic Success of Pulpectomy Done with and without Dental Operating Microscope in Pediatric Patients: An Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023;16(S-2):S155-S160.

References

Verma N, Sangwan P, Tewari S, Duhan J . Effect of Different Concentrations of Sodium Hypochlorite on Outcome of Primary Root Canal Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Endod. 2019; 45(4):357-363. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.01.003. View

Crespo S, Cortes O, Garcia C, Perez L . Comparison between rotary and manual instrumentation in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008; 32(4):295-8. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.4.l57l36355u606576. View

Trairatvorakul C, Chunlasikaiwan S . Success of pulpectomy with zinc oxide-eugenol vs calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste in primary molars: a clinical study. Pediatr Dent. 2008; 30(4):303-8. View

Ahmed H . Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endod J. 2013; 46(11):1011-22. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12134. View

Ozalp N, Saroglu I, Sonmez H . Evaluation of various root canal filling materials in primary molar pulpectomies: an in vivo study. Am J Dent. 2006; 18(6):347-50. View

Nakornchai S, Banditsing P, Visetratana N . Clinical evaluation of 3Mix and Vitapex as treatment options for pulpally involved primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2010; 20(3):214-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01044.x. View

Angwaravong O, Panitvisai P . Accuracy of an electronic apex locator in primary teeth with root resorption. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(2):115-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01476.x. View

Samaranayake L, Reid J, Evans D . The efficacy of rubber dam isolation in reducing atmospheric bacterial contamination. ASDC J Dent Child. 1989; 56(6):442-4. View

Nurko C, Garcia-Godoy F . Evaluation of a calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste (Vitapex) in root canal therapy for primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999; 23(4):289-94. View

10.

Ramar K, Mungara J . Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpectomies using three root canal filling materials: an in-vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2010; 28(1):25-9. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.60481. View

11.

Gupta S, Das G . Clinical and radiographic evaluation of zinc oxide eugenol and metapex in root canal treatment of primary teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011; 29(3):222-8. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.85829. View

12.

Dou G, Wang D, Zhang S, Ma W, Xu M, Xia B . A retrospective study on the long-term outcomes of pulpectomy and influencing factors in primary teeth. J Dent Sci. 2022; 17(2):771-779. PMC: 9201929. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.10.007. View

13.

Manchanda S, Sardana D, Yiu C . A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing rotary canal instrumentation techniques with manual instrumentation techniques in primary teeth. Int Endod J. 2019; 53(3):333-353. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13233. View

14.

Rodd H, Waterhouse P, Fuks A, Fayle S, Moffat M . Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006; 16 Suppl 1:15-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00774.x. View

15.

Morabito A, Defabianis P . A SEM investigation on pulpal-periodontal connections in primary teeth. ASDC J Dent Child. 1992; 59(1):53-7. View

16.

Chen Y, Li H, Li M, Yang L, Sun Q, Chen K . Analysis of survival and factors associated with failure of primary tooth pulpectomies performed under general anaesthesia in children from South China. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019; 30(2):225-233. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12589. View

17.

Pramila R, Muthu M, Deepa G, Farzan J, Rodrigues S . Pulpectomies in primary mandibular molars: a comparison of outcomes using three root filling materials. Int Endod J. 2015; 49(5):413-21. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12478. View

18.

Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K . Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1990; 16(10):498-504. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4. View

19.

Coll J, Sadrian R . Predicting pulpectomy success and its relationship to exfoliation and succedaneous dentition. Pediatr Dent. 1996; 18(1):57-63. View

20.

Subramaniam P, Gilhotra K . Endoflas, zinc oxide eugenol and metapex as root canal filling materials in primary molars--a comparative clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011; 35(4):365-9. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.4.1377v06621143233. View