Formocresol and electrosurgical pulpotomy
Bahrololoomi, et al.
Assessed for eligibility (n = 100 primary molars in 50 patients)
Excluded (n = 30 teeth)
Enrollment
Allocated to intervention (ES group) (n = 35) Received allocated intervention (n = 35) Did not receive allocated intervention (n = 0)
Lost to follow-up (n = 2 teeth) Give reasons: Due to extraction
Allocation
Allocated to intervention (FC group) (n = 35) Received allocated intervention (n = 35) Did not receive allocated intervention (n = 0)
Lost to follow-up (n = 0) Give reasons
Follow-Up
Discontinued intervention (n = 0)
Analyzed (n = 33)
Not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 20 teeth) Refused to participate (n = 4 patients with 8 teeth) Other reasons (n = 2 teeth)
Analysis
Excluded from analysis (n = 0)
Discontinued intervention (n = 0)
Analyzed (n = 35) Excluded from analysis (n = 0)
Figure 1: Flow diagram to show number of teeth enrolled, treated and followed
Table 1: Number of teeth with clinical signs in each recall Clinical finding Pain Fistula Abscess Mobility
3 months 0 0 0 0
Electrosurgical pulpotomy 6 months 9 months 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 months 0 0 0 0
Formocresol pulpotomy 6 months 0 0 0 0
9 months 0 0 0 0
Table 2: Number of teeth with radiographic signs in each recall Radiographic finding Internal resorption External resorption Furca radiolucency Indian J Dent Res, 19(3), 2008
3 months 0 2 1
Electrosurgical pulpotomy 6 months 9 months 2 2 3 4 2 3
3 months 1 0 0
Formocresol pulpotomy 6 months 9 months 1 1 0 0 0 0 222