343 - Formocresol Pulpotomy vs. Vitrebond Indirect Pulp Therapy

Saturday, May 28, 2022

9:20 AM – 9:35 AM PT

Location: Sails Pavilion

Has Audio

Presenting Author(s)

Jordan Castillo, DDS

Resident
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Omaha, Nebraska, United States

Research Mentor(s)

Bryan Skar, DDS

Assistant Professor
UNMC
University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Dentistry
Omaha, Nebraska, United States

Program Director(s)

ZH

Zachary L. Houser, DMD

Program Director
UNMC
Omaha, Nebraska, United States

Purpose: Our 5 year retrospective study is to follow up on the UNMC Pediatric Dental Clinic’s full mouth dental rehabilitation cases under general anesthesia requiring either a Formocresol pulpotomy or Vitrebond indirect pulp therapy on primary molars and their success rate. We aim to evaluate if indirect pulp therapy is a good treatment alternative to the Formocresol pulpotomy.

Methods: 361 patients that received full mouth rehabilitation while under general anesthesia from July 2016-December 2017. Inclusion criteria: ages 2-9, either a Formocresol pulpotomy or Vitrebond indirect pulp therapy on a primary molar. Data was gathered retrospectively from patients’ record on Eaglesoft, a dental practice software. All data was recorded and calculated on Microsoft Excel.

Results: Of 361 eligible patients, the failure rate at 5 years for the Formocresol pulpotomy was 9.7% while the Vitrebond indirect pulp therapy was 0.2%. Out of 247 Formocresol pulpotomies, there were 24 failures. Out of 522 Vitrebond indirect pulp therapies, there was one failure. The average age of our patient pool was 4.5 years old with a gender distribution of 54% female and 46% male. The insurance demographics were: Nebraska MCNA (80%), Iowa DHS (6%), Private Insurance (11%) and Self-Pay (0.80%).

Conclusions: Our findings show that both have good outcomes and low failure rates. According to our data, we found that Vitrebond indirect pulp therapy is more successful than Formocresol pulpotomies. Any noted failures could be attributed to: inaccurate diagnosis, micro-leakage of restoration, undiscovered pulp exposure, inadequate removal of pulpal tissue and poor oral hygiene.