Comparison of Biodentine and Formocresol in Deciduous Teeth

Authors

  • María Fernanda Delgado Universidad Abierta Interamericana, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Carrera de Odontología. Buenos Aires, Argentina Author
  • María Julia Campano Universidad Abierta Interamericana, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Carrera de Odontología. Buenos Aires, Argentina Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56294/piii2025439

Keywords:

Biodentine, Formocresol, Deciduous, Teeth, Carcinogenic

Abstract

Introduction: Pulpotomy is a widely used procedure in pediatric dentistry to treat pulp inflammation in the primary dentition. This procedure involves amputation of the inflamed coronal pulp and treatment of the remaining root pulp tissue with the aim of preserving its vitality. However, due to the risks associated with the use of formocresol, the need has arisen to explore safer and more effective alternatives. In this context, the investigation compared the efficacy and safety of Biodentine and formocresol in the treatment of pulp lesions in deciduous teeth.
Methods: A systematic search of the literature published in the last ten years was carried out in recognized databases such as Scielo, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and PubMed. The selection of studies considered those that evaluated the clinical application, success rate and possible adverse effects of both materials in pulp treatment of primary teeth.
Results: The results showed that Biodentine offered better preservation of pulp vitality and a lower incidence of adverse effects compared to formocresol. In addition, the studies reviewed highlighted the biocompatibility and regenerative properties of Biodentine, in contrast to the potential risks associated with the use of formocresol, such as its toxicity and possible carcinogenic effect.
Conclusions: It was concluded that Biodentine represents a safer and more effective alternative to formocresol in the treatment of pulpal lesions in deciduous teeth. Its use as the material of choice in pulpotomies would be justified by its superiority in terms of biocompatibility and lower risk of adverse effects

References

1. Reynoso NP, Leyda AM, Ribelles M. Pulpotomía en dentición primaria: un análisis bibliométrico de 57 años [Internet]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357694969_Pulpotomia_en_denticion_primaria_un_analisis_bibliometrico_de_57_anos [accessed Apr 30, 2023].

2. Coll JA. Indirect pulp capping and primary teeth: is the primary tooth pulpotomy out of date? J Endod. 2008;34(7 Suppl):S34-S39.

3. De Solminihac J, Pizarro S, Cárdenas A. Pulpotomía con Biodentine comparado con formocresol en pacientes con dentición primaria. Int J Inter Dent. 2020;13(3):212-6. DOI: 10.4067/S2452-55882020000300212.

4. Athanassiadis B, Abbott PV, Walsh LJ. A review of the effects of formaldehyde release from endodontic materials. Int Endod J. 2015;48(9):829-38. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12389.

5. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 100F: chemical agents and related occupations, formaldehyde. 2012 [Internet]. Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/123 [accessed Apr 11, 2023].

6. Carletto-Körber F. Odontología mínimamente invasiva. Tratamiento restaurador atraumático. Rev Huellas. 2013;1(3):1-12.

7. Buzo P, Manríquez J, González B, Prieto M, Gutiérrez I, Palacios F. Comparación del uso de formocresol vs Biodentine/MTA en pulpotomías; revisión sistemática. 2021;10(2):Mayo-Agosto.

8. Bordoni N, Escobar Rojas A, Castillo Mercado R. Odontología pediátrica: la salud bucal del niño y el adolescente en el mundo actual. Panamericana M; 2010.

9. Ross MH. Sistema digestivo 1: cavidad bucal y estructuras asociadas. 7a ed. España; 2016.

10. Abreu-Correa J, Marbán-González R, Morffi-López I, Ortiz-de-la-Cruz I. Complejo dentino pulpar: estructura y diagnóstico. Rev Med Isla Juventud. 2013;12(1):[aprox. 17 p.]. Available from: https://remij.sld.cu/index.php/remij/article/view/9.

11. Basso ML. Conceptos actualizados en cariología. Rev Asoc Odontol Argent. 2019;107(1):25-32.

12. Abello GC, Hernández LCL. Caries dental: de la placa ecológica a las decisiones clínicas. Univ Odontol. 2020;39.

13. Oliveira Del Rio JA, Bravo-Cevallos PE, Mendoza-Castro AM. Algunas técnicas alternativas al formocresol en las pulpotomías de dientes temporales. Polo del Conocimiento. 2017;2(10):3-13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23857/pc.v2i10.373.

14. Salinas Cristóbal, Guidotti L, Rodríguez C, Sotomayor C. Supervivencia de molares temporales con tratamiento de pulpotomía: un análisis de Kaplan-Meier. Int J Odontostomat. 2013;7(3):441-6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-381X2013000300017.

15. Morales de Armas M, Cabañas Lores C, Ramos Cardoso L. Uso de formocresol diluido en dientes temporales. Rev Cubana Estomatol. 1998;35(1):5-10. Available from: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-75071998000100001.

16. Smaïl-Faugeron V, Glenny AM, Courson F, Durieux P, Muller-Bolla M, Fron-Chabouis H. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003220.pub3.

17. Laboratorios DrPreston. FORMOCRESOL s/BUCKLEY DICKINSON®: Prospecto. Buenos Aires: Laboratorios DrPreston; [Year]. Available from: https://dickinsondental.com.ar/recubrimiento/pdf/FORMOCRESOL.pdf.

18. Issrani R, Prabhu N, Bader AK, Alfayyadh AY, Alruwaili KK, Alanazi SH, Ganji KK, Alam MK. Exploring the properties of formocresol in dentistry: a comprehensive review. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023;47(3):1-10.

19. Hincapié Narváez S, Valerio Rodríguez AL. Biodentine: un nuevo material en terapia pulpar. Univ Odontol. 2015;34(73):21-8.

20. Simancas Escorcia V, Díaz Caballero A. Biodentine: ¿sustituto de la dentina? Salud Barranquilla. 2020;36(3):587-605. DOI: 10.14482/sun.36.3.617.6.

21. SEPTODONT. Biodentine Active Biosilicate Technology®: Prospecto. Saint-Maur-des-Fossés: SEPTODONT.

22. Coll JA, Seale NS, Vargas K, Marghalani AA, Shamali SA, Graham L. Primary tooth vital pulp therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Dent. 2017;39(1):16-27.

23. Casanova Méndez LD, Hurtado González LB. Consecuencias del uso del formocresol en el tratamiento de momificación y la tasa de éxito de los materiales usados en pulpotomías. 2020;79-82.

24. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2015;16(6):486-503.

25. Consoli Lizzi EP, Corominola PL, Martínez P, Nastri ML, Rimaro GA, Rodríguez PA. Técnica de apexificación con un sustituto bioactivo de la dentina en una sola sesión: caso clínico. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Buenos Aires. 2021;36(82):43-8. Available from: https://revista.odontologia.uba.ar/index.php/rfouba/article/view/77.

26. Fuentes Ugartemendia I. Uso de biomateriales como obturación apical. Tesis doctoral. Universidad del País Vasco; 2018. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10810/53490.

27. El Meligy OAES, Alamoudi NM, Allazzam SM, El-Housseiny AAM. Biodentine™ versus formocresol pulpotomy technique in primary molars: a 12-month randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):3. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0702-4.

Downloads

Published

2025-01-01

How to Cite

1.
Delgado MF, Campano MJ. Comparison of Biodentine and Formocresol in Deciduous Teeth. SCT Proceedings in Interdisciplinary Insights and Innovations [Internet]. 2025 Jan. 1 [cited 2025 Feb. 14];3:439. Available from: https://proceedings.ageditor.ar/index.php/piii/article/view/439