Article Sidebar
Date Published:
15/02/2024
Abstract Views: 247
Views pdf: 116
Views pdf: 116
Issue
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Trần, T. M. H., Đào, T. H. N., Lê, T. T. L., Nguyễn, T. K. H., Lương, M. H., Nguyễn, H. T., & Vũ, K. T. (2024). RESULTS OF PULPOTOMY TREATMENT FOR PRIMARY MOLARS WITH IRM (INTERMEDIATE RESTORATIVE MATERIAL). Vietnam Medical Journal, 535(1B). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v535i1B.8456
RESULTS OF PULPOTOMY TREATMENT FOR PRIMARY MOLARS WITH IRM (INTERMEDIATE RESTORATIVE MATERIAL)
Main Article Content
Abstract
Uncontrolled clinical intervention study to evaluate the effectiveness of IRM (Intermediate restorative material) in pulpotomy treatment on primary molars. The study was conducted on 25 children from 3 to 8 years old with 68 primary molars. Monitoring treatment results after 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months showed that 100% of teeth had no clinical and X-ray abnormalities, 100% of teeth were treated successfully. IRM can be considered a reliable pulpotomy treatment material.
Article Details
Keywords
pulpotomy, primary molars, children, IRM (Intermediate restorative material), uncontrolled clinical intervention study.
References
1. Gonzalez-Lara. A, Ruiz-Rodriguez MS, Pierdant-Perez M, et al. Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Pulpotomy in Primary Teeth: A 24-Month Follow-up. The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016;40(2):107-112.
2. Hui-Derksen EK, et al. Reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol pulpotomy: A retrospective study. Pediatric Dentistry; 2013. 35(43-36).
3. Chédid JC, Pilipili C. A 24 month evaluation of zinc oxide pulpotomy on primary canines. Rev Belge Med Dent. 2008;63:69-76.
4. Chien MM, Setzer S, Cleaton-Jones P. How does zinc oxide-eugenol compare to ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy material? SADJ. 2001;56(3): 130-135.
5. Stanley HR. Design for a human pulp study. 1968b. 756–764 p. (Part IL. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathoiogy.).
6. Stanley HR. Design for a human pulp study. 1968. 633–647 p. (Part I. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathoiogy).
7. Dickey DM, El-Kafrawy AH, Mitchell DF. Clinical and microscopic pulp response to a composite restorative material. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1974;88:108-113.
8. Avery JK. Response of the pulp and dentine to contact with filling materials. Journal of Dentai Research. 1975;54(B):188-197.
9. Watts A, Paterson RC. Pulpal response to a zinc oxide-eugenol cement. 1987;20:82-86. Int Endod Journal. 1987;20:82-86.
2. Hui-Derksen EK, et al. Reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol pulpotomy: A retrospective study. Pediatric Dentistry; 2013. 35(43-36).
3. Chédid JC, Pilipili C. A 24 month evaluation of zinc oxide pulpotomy on primary canines. Rev Belge Med Dent. 2008;63:69-76.
4. Chien MM, Setzer S, Cleaton-Jones P. How does zinc oxide-eugenol compare to ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy material? SADJ. 2001;56(3): 130-135.
5. Stanley HR. Design for a human pulp study. 1968b. 756–764 p. (Part IL. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathoiogy.).
6. Stanley HR. Design for a human pulp study. 1968. 633–647 p. (Part I. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine and Oral Pathoiogy).
7. Dickey DM, El-Kafrawy AH, Mitchell DF. Clinical and microscopic pulp response to a composite restorative material. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1974;88:108-113.
8. Avery JK. Response of the pulp and dentine to contact with filling materials. Journal of Dentai Research. 1975;54(B):188-197.
9. Watts A, Paterson RC. Pulpal response to a zinc oxide-eugenol cement. 1987;20:82-86. Int Endod Journal. 1987;20:82-86.