The Experts below are selected from a list of 939 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ruimin Li - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of Formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy a systematic review and meta analysis
International Endodontic Journal, 2007Co-Authors: Li Da-peng, Xuedong Zhou, Ling Ye, Chenglin Wang, Ruimin LiAbstract:Aim To present a systematic review of the effects of Formocresol and ferric sulphate when used as medicaments in pulpotomized primary molar teeth. Methodology The study list was obtained by using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and SCI search. Only those papers which met the inclusion criteria were accepted. The quality of studies used for meta-analysis was assessed by a series of validity criteria according to Jadad's scale. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Results Eleven clinical studies comprising four randomized-clinical trials (RCTs), four controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and three retrospective studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis of six prospective clinical trials suggested that the two popular pulpotomy medicaments were not significantly different in terms of clinical outcomes, radiographic findings, prevalence of apical and furcal destruction, internal root resorption or pulp canal obliteration. The relative risk (RR) value and 95% CI for those parameters were 0.72 (0.43–1.23), 0.87 (0.59–1.30), 0.67 (0.27–1.66), 1.77 (0.56–5.58) and 1.41 (0.63–3.15), respectively. The overall clinical and radiographic success rates based on the data of treatments with ferric sulphate from the 11 studies included ranged from 78% to 100% (mean 91.6 ± 8.15%) and from 42% to 97% (mean 73.5 ± 18.40%), respectively. Conclusions In primary molar teeth with exposure of vital pulps by caries or trauma, pulpotomies performed with either Formocresol or ferric sulphate have similar clinical and radiographic success. Ferric sulphate may be recommended as a suitable replacement for Formocresol.
Saeed Asgary - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Investigating the mutagenic effects of three commonly used pulpotomy agents using the ames test.
Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 2015Co-Authors: Mohammad Samiei, Saeed Asgary, Malak Farajzadeh, Nasrin Bargahi, Majid Abdolrahimi, Usef Kananizadeh, Siavoush DastmalchiAbstract:Purpose: The mutagenic potency of materials used in dentistry is of great concern. The Ames test is a bacterial reverse mutation assay, which is used to determine the mutagenicity potential of chemicals. In this study, the Ames test was used to compare mutagenic effects of three pulpotomy agents, namely, CEM cement, Formocresol and ferric sulfate. Methods: TA100 strain of Salmonella typhimurium was used to evaluate mutagenicity of different concentrations of pulpotomy materials in the presence and absence of enzymatic system found in rat liver S9 fraction. Negative controls were 1% dimethyl sulfoxide and water. The positive controls were sodium azide and 2-aminoanthracene. The number of colonies per plate was counted. The material was regarded mutagenic if the number of histidine revertant colonies was twice or more than the spontaneous revertant colonies (Ames mutagenicity ratio). Results: Ferric sulfate was found mutagenic in the concentrations prepared by addition of 50 µL of its 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 times diluted solutions to the culture medium in the absence of S9 fraction (Ames test ratios of 2.8 and 2.2, respectively). Formocresol showed strong toxicity toward TA100 strain of S. typhimurium up to the concentration as low achieved using 1000 times diluted solution of the original preparation, particularly in the presence of S9 fraction. Ames assay failed to detect significant reverse mutations in all the concentrations of CEM cement. Conclusion: In contrast to Formocresol and ferric sulfate, CEM cement is a less toxic and non-mutagenic agent.
-
mineral trioxide aggregate versus Formocresol pulpotomy a systematic review and meta analysis of randomized clinical trials
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2014Co-Authors: Armin Shirvani, Saeed AsgaryAbstract:This study systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of primary molar pulpotomies with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Formocresol. The study also aimed to assess the possible association of reported prognostic factors on the success rate and relative risk using meta-regression analysis. A comprehensive literature search using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases up to March 2013 was conducted. After scoring and data extraction of qualified trials (n = 19, representing 1,585 patients), meta-analyses were performed using Mantel–Haenszel model and inverse variance-weighted method. The results revealed that MTA is more effective than Formocresol in primary molars pulpotomy, resulting in a lower failure rate with a relative risk of 0.26 (CI, 0.13–0.49), 0.37 (CI, 0.19–0.70), and 0.41 (CI, 0.25–0.68) for 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups (test for statistical heterogeneity: p = 0.99, p = 0.98, and p = 0.23), respectively. Compared to amalgam restoration, success rate was significantly greater with SS crown (P < 0.05); however, no evidence for association between other reported prognostic factors such as selection of first/second molar, upper/lower jaw, gender, and various follow-up times with treatment success was observed. Based on the quality, homogeneity, and sufficient number of included RCTs, primary molar pulpotomy with MTA can produce a higher success rate in comparison with Formocresol. When compared with Formocresol, MTA pulpotomy is superior in treating primary molars.
Anna B Fuks - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing pure portland cement and Formocresol pulpotomies followed from 2 to 4 years
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, 2021Co-Authors: Roy Petel, Anna B Fuks, K Ziskind, N Bernfeld, H Suliman, Moti MoskovitzAbstract:The purpose of the present prospective randomised clinical control trial was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic success rate of pulpotomies in primary molars using pure Portland cement versus Formocresol. Pure Portland cement has shown a high rate of success in pulpotomy treatments, with no side effects. Healthy 3- to 11-year-old children were treated with pulpotomies on primary molars as part of their scheduled dental treatment. Pulp dressing alternated randomly between pure Portland cement and Formocresol. Data were analysed at follow-up periods up to 48 months. 68 (50%) teeth with pure Portland cement and 68 (50%) teeth with Formocresol in 136 healthy children (59 boys and 77 girls) were followed. The overall success rate of the pulpotomies in this study was 95.6%. Pure Portland cement was successful in 100% of the cases (68 out of 68), and Formocresol in 91.1% (62 out of 68). No association was found between success and type of tooth or time range from treatment to last follow-up. Based on this study’s results, it can be concluded that there is no superiority of one material over the other and pure Portland cement can be used in primary molar pulpotomies.
-
a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing tricalcium silicate and Formocresol pulpotomies followed for two to four years
Pediatric Dentistry, 2019Co-Authors: Moran Rubanenko, Roy Petel, Nili Tickotsky, Ido Fayer, Anna B Fuks, Moti MoskovitzAbstract:Purpose: Tricalcium silicate (Biodentine), a new synthetic inorganic restorative cement, has shown a high rate of success in pulpotomy treatments, with few side effects. The purpose of the present randomized clinical control trial was to evaluate the long-term success of pulpotomies in human primary molars using tricalcium silicate versus Formocresol. Methods: Healthy two- to 10-year-olds were treated with pulpotomies on primary molars as part of their scheduled regular dental treatment. Pulp dressing alternated randomly between tricalcium silicate and Formocresol. Data were analyzed at follow-up periods up to 48 months. Results: Thirty-seven (51.4 percent) teeth with tricalcium silicate and 35 (48.6 percent) teeth with Formocresol in 58 healthy children (31 boys and 27 girls) were studied. The overall success rate of the pulpotomies in this study was 94.4 percent. Tricalcium silicate was successful in 97.3 percent (36 out of 37) of the cases, and Formocresol in 91.4 percent (32 out of 35). No association was found between success and type of tooth or time range from treatment to last follow-up. Conclusion: Tricalcium silicate shows a higher (though not statistically significant) success rate than Formocresol in human primary molars pulpotomies followed for two to four years.
-
mineral trioxide aggregate vs Formocresol in pulpotomized primary molars a preliminary report
Pediatric Dentistry, 2001Co-Authors: E Eidelman, Gideon Holan, Anna B FuksAbstract:Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) to that of Formocresol (FC) as pulp dressing agents in pulpotomized primary molars with carious pulp exposure. Methods: Forty-five primary molars of 26 children were treated by a conventional pulpotomy technique. The teeth were randomly assigned to the MTA (experimental) or FC (control) group by a toss of a coin. Following removal of the coronal pulp and hemostasis the pulp stumps were covered with an MTA paste in the experimental group. In the control group, FC was placed with a cotton pellet over the pulp stumps for 5 minutes and removed; the pulp stumps were then covered by zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) paste. The teeth of both groups were restored with stainless steel crowns. Eighteen children with 32 teeth arrived for clinical and radiographic follow-up evaluation ranging from 6 to 30 months. Results: The follow-up evaluations revealed only one failure (internal resorption detected at a 17 months postoperative evaluation) in a molar treated with Formocresol. None of the MTA-treated teeth showed any clinical or radiographic pathology. Pulp canal obliteration was observed in 9 of 32 (28%) evaluated molars. This finding was detected in 2 out of the 15 teeth treated with FC (13%) and in 7 out of the 17 treated with MTA (41%). Conclusion: MTA showed clinical and radiographic success as a dressing material following pulpotomy in primary teeth and seems to be a suitable replacement for Formocresol in primary teeth. (Pediatr Dent 23:15-18, 2001)
Chris Deery - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Formocresol and ferric sulfate have similar success rates in primary molar pulpotomy in carious primary molars does a pulpotomy performed with ferric sulphate compared with Formocresol result in greater clinical radiographic success
Evidence-based Dentistry, 2005Co-Authors: Chris DeeryAbstract:Medline Ovid Library, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index (SCI) and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE). Reviews, full reports, or research abstracts of prospective, retrospective, comparative, and/or radiographic studies were included, while case reports and letters were excluded. A total of 13 studies (three randomized clinical trials and 10 clinical trials) contributed to the meta-analysis, one randomized clinical trial and one clinical trial were analyzed by the direct technique, and all 13 trials were analyzed by the indirect technique. Data from trials were divided into clinical and radiographic data, and separate statistical analyses were conducted using the direct technique. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to compare the relative success of ferric sulphate and Formocresol. Data homogeneity was tested using the χ2-test of consistency on the ORs for each trial. Clinical data indicated that ferric sulphate was significantly more successful than Formocresol (OR=1.95; CI=1.01–3.80). Radiographic data indicated no difference between medicaments (OR=0.90; CI=0.58–1.39). Medicaments did not differ with t-tests of clinical (P>0.10) and radiographic (P>0.50) data. In human carious primary molars with reversible coronal pulpitis, pulpotomies performed with either Formocresol or ferric sulphate are likely to have similar clinical/radiographic success.
Li Da-peng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of Formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy a systematic review and meta analysis
International Endodontic Journal, 2007Co-Authors: Li Da-peng, Xuedong Zhou, Ling Ye, Chenglin Wang, Ruimin LiAbstract:Aim To present a systematic review of the effects of Formocresol and ferric sulphate when used as medicaments in pulpotomized primary molar teeth. Methodology The study list was obtained by using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and SCI search. Only those papers which met the inclusion criteria were accepted. The quality of studies used for meta-analysis was assessed by a series of validity criteria according to Jadad's scale. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Results Eleven clinical studies comprising four randomized-clinical trials (RCTs), four controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and three retrospective studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis of six prospective clinical trials suggested that the two popular pulpotomy medicaments were not significantly different in terms of clinical outcomes, radiographic findings, prevalence of apical and furcal destruction, internal root resorption or pulp canal obliteration. The relative risk (RR) value and 95% CI for those parameters were 0.72 (0.43–1.23), 0.87 (0.59–1.30), 0.67 (0.27–1.66), 1.77 (0.56–5.58) and 1.41 (0.63–3.15), respectively. The overall clinical and radiographic success rates based on the data of treatments with ferric sulphate from the 11 studies included ranged from 78% to 100% (mean 91.6 ± 8.15%) and from 42% to 97% (mean 73.5 ± 18.40%), respectively. Conclusions In primary molar teeth with exposure of vital pulps by caries or trauma, pulpotomies performed with either Formocresol or ferric sulphate have similar clinical and radiographic success. Ferric sulphate may be recommended as a suitable replacement for Formocresol.
