Histological evaluation of electrosurgery and formocresol pulpotomy techniques in primary teeth in dogs.
The purpose of this study was to compare pulpal and periapical tissue reactions to electrosurgery versus formocresol pulpotomy techniques in the primary teeth of dogs. The study was conducted on 33 primary teeth of three mongrel dogs between the ages of one to three months. Each dog had three teeth treated by Formocresol Pulpotomy with Mechanical Coronal Pulp Removal (FC), three teeth treated by Electrosurgery Pulpotomy with Mechanical Coronal Pulp Removal (ES/MCPR), three teeth treated by Electrosurgery Pulpotomy with Electrosurgical Coronal Pulp Removal (ES/ECPR), and two teeth serving as untreated Controls. Dogs one, two and three were sacrificed performing the pulpotomies at two, four and six weeks, respectively. The pulp, periapical tissue and after surrounding bone were submitted to histological examination and the histological reaction was recorded. The results were fourteen out of 18 unfavorable and zero out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the FC treated teeth. Six out of 18 unfavorable and one out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the ES/MCPR treated teeth. Nine out of 18 unfavorable and two out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the ES/ECPR treated teeth. One out of 18 unfavorable and zero out of three favorable histological reactions occurred in the untreated Control teeth. The conclusion of this study is that of the three experimental groups, the teeth treated by Electrosurgery Pulpotomy with either Mechanical or Electrosurgical Coronal Pulp Removal exhibited less histopathological reaction than the teeth treated by Formocresol Pulpotomy.[1]References
- Histological evaluation of electrosurgery and formocresol pulpotomy techniques in primary teeth in dogs. El-Meligy, O., Abdalla, M., El-Baraway, S., El-Tekya, M., Dean, J.A. The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. (2001) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
