•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Background: Pulpotomy is a widely accepted treatment for carious exposure of vital primary molars, using various medicaments. Currently, lasers have emerged as a non-pharmacologic pulpotomy technique. However, comparative clinical studies in Myanmar remain limited. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of diode laser and conventional ferric sulfate pulpotomy in deciduous molars among children in Myanmar.

Methods: A total of 40 deciduous mandibular molars requiring pulpotomy treatment were selected from children between 4 and 8 years of age. The subjects were randomly assigned to the diode laser group (Group A) or the ferric sulfate group (Group B) using block randomization and were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 3 and 6 months.

Results: At the 3- and 6-month follow-ups, the clinical and radiographic success rates for diode laser pulpotomy were 100%, whereas the success rates for ferric sulfate pulpotomy were 95% and 90%, respectively. Fisher’s exact test revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups (p = 1.000 at 3 months; p = 0.487 at 6 months), despite the higher success rates observed in the diode laser group.

Conclusions: Diode laser can be considered a non-pharmacologic pulpotomy technique as an alternative to conventional ferric sulfate pulpotomy in deciduous molars.

References

  1. Kazeminia M, Abdi A, Shohaimi S, Jalali R, Vaisi-Raygani A, Salari N, et al. Dental caries in primary and permanent teeth in children's worldwide, 1995 to 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Face Med. 2020;16:22.
  2. Oo TH, Tianviwat S, Thitasomakul S. Oral health system in Myanmar: A review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2021;11(3):231–41.
  3. Tandon S. Pediatric Dentistry. 3rd ed. India: Paras Medical Publisher; 2018.
  4. El Meligy OAES, Alamoudi NM, Allazzam SM, El-Housseiny AAM. BiodentineTM versus formocresol pulpotomy technique in primary molars: a 12–month randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:3.
  5. Gisour EF, Jahanimoghadam F, Karimipour P. Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molar pulpotomy using formocresol, portland cement, and NeoMTA plus: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Sci Rep. 2024;14:29690.
  6. Bagchi P, Kashyap N, Biswas S. Pulpotomy: Modern concepts and materials. Int J Oral Health Dent. 2021;7(4):245–52.
  7. Şahin ND, Arikan V, Tulga Öz F. Comparative evaluation of the success of Er,Cr:YSGG laser, ferric sulfate, or a herbal hemostatic agent for hemostasis in primary molar pulpotomy. Eur J Oral Sci. 2025;133(4):e70022.
  8. Vural H, Senem Özsunkar P, Duman S, Syed AZ, Tıraşçı G, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four pulpotomy agents in primary molars: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Odontology. 2025. Epub ahead of print.
  9. Somwanshi Y, Chavhan P, Sajjanar A, Ughade S, Gutte N, Kolekar P, et al. Comparative evaluation of the success rate of pulpotomy in primary molars using Ferric Sulphate (FS) and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA): A clinical and radiographic study. J Pharm Res Int. 2021;33(59B):356–63.
  10. Welbury R, Duggal MS, Hosey MT. Paediatric Dentistry. 5th ed. England: Oxford University Press; 2018.
  11. Bandi M, Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S. Clinical applications of ferric sulfate in dentistry: A narrative review. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20(4):278–81.
  12. Hyder T. Diode laser in dentistry: Current and emerging applications. J Pak Dent Assoc. 2022;31(2):100–5.
  13. Ambika S, Suchithra MS. Diode laser in pediatric dentistry. Int J Sci Res. 2018;7(2):363–9.
  14. Joshi PR, Baliga SM, Rathi NV, Thosar NR, Dharmadhikari PM, Chandak P. A comparative evaluation between formocresol and diode laser-assisted pulpotomy in primary molars–an in vivo study. Eur J Pharm Med Res. 2017;4(5):569–75.
  15. Niranjani K, Prasad MG, Vasa AA, Divya G, Thakur MS, Saujanya K. Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using mineral trioxide aggregate(®), laser and biodentineTM-an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(4):ZC35–7.
  16. Gupta G, Rana V, Srivastava N, Chandna P. Laser pulpotomy—An effective alternative to conventional techniques: a 12 months clinicoradiographic study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8(1):18–21.
  17. Felemban OM. Laser pulpotomies’ clinical and radiographic success in primary teeth by type of laser. Children. 2025;12(11):1508.
  18. Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S, World Health Organization. Sample Size Determination in Health Studies: A Practical Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1991.
  19. Aksoy B, Güngör HC, Uysal S, Gonzales CD, Ölmez S. Ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary teeth with different base materials: a 2-year randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int. 2022;53(9):782–9.
  20. Sivadas S, Rao A, Natarajan S, Shenoy R, Srikrishna SB. Pulpal response to ferric sulfate and diode laser when used as pulpotomy agent: an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):ZC87–91.
  21. Thakkar S, Naik SV, Bellal S, Naik DS. Cold lasers for photobiomodulation in pulpotomy of primary molars: A short review. IP Indian J Conserv Endod. 2023;8(2):74–8.
  22. Ansari G, Morovati SP, Asgary S. Evaluation of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: A randomized controlled trial. Iran Endod J. 2018;13(1):7–12.
  23. Kaya C, Elbay ÜŞ, Elbay M, Uçar G. The comparison of calcium hydroxide + biostimulation, calcium hydroxide, formocresol, and MTA pulpotomies without biostimulation in primary teeth: 12-months clinical and radiographic follow-up. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37(5):2545–54.
  24. Ebrahimi M, Changiz S, Makarem A, Ahrari F. Clinical and radiographic effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) partial pulpotomy with low power or high power diode laser irradiation in deciduous molars: a randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37:2293–303.
  25. Coluzzi DJ, Parker SPA. Lasers in Dentistry—Current Concepts. In Textbooks in Contemporary dentistry, 2nd ed. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2017.
  26. Mareddy A, Mallikarjun SB, Shetty PV, Rao VVN, Tp c. Histological evaluation of diode laser pulpotomy in dogs. J Oral Laser Appl. 2010;10(1):7–16.
  27. Pei S-L, Shih W-Y, Liu J-F. Outcome comparison between diode laser pulpotomy and formocresol pulpotomy on human primary molars. J Dent Sci. 2020;15(2):163–7.
  28. Nuvvula S, Bandi M, Mallineni SK. Efficacy of ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy medicament in primary molars: an evidence based approach. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2018;19:439–47.
  29. Kotsanos N, Sarnat H, Park K. Pediatric Dentistry. Switzerland: Springer Cham; 2022.
  30. Tan SY, Yu VSH, Lim KC, Tan BCK, Neo CLJ, Shen L, et al. Long-term pulpal and restorative outcomes of pulpotomy in mature permanent teeth. J Endodontic. 2020;46(3):383–90.
  31. Guguloth S, Jampanapalli SR, Patloth T, Suhasini K, Ingua HC, Shaik H. Evaluation of chitosan and ferric sulphate as pulpotomy agents in primary teeth: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023;16(2):223–6.
  32. Walia T, Alzayer WFA, Al Nemer MNA. Pulpal dressing condensation methods in pulpotomy for primary molars: an in-vitro comparative study. Saudi Dent J. 2021;33(8):1029–34.
  33. Kaur K, Suneja B, Jodhka S, Saini RS, Chaturvedi S, Bavabeedu SS, et al. Comparison between restorative materials for pulpotomised deciduous molars: a randomized clinical study. Children. 2023;10(2):284.
  34. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. Chicago: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2023. p. 457–65.

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.