PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9391709

The pulp capping procedure in primary teeth "revisited".

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to "revisit" an earlier paper (1992) on the subject of direct pulp capping in primary teeth and bring some new considerations for the procedure by the use of dentin bonding adhesives. It has come to be recognized that the customary employment of calcium hydroxide for this therapy has some shortcomings that reduce the prognosis for a favorable outcome. For at least a decade, many investigations have found that postoperative sensitivity, thermal stimuli, pulp inflammation and pathosis can be attributed not to the composition of various dental materials and their insertion techniques, but to microleakage with subsequent bacterial invasion at the enamel/restoration and the dentin/pulp interfaces. It is imperative, as pointed out, that there be an impervious resinous bond between the dentin and the dentinopulpal complex which can be achieved by the use of dentinal adhesive agents to eliminate microleakage outward movement of pulpal fluids. Various steps in the bonding technique for the treatment of deep dentin caries and/or a pulp exposure has raised some concerns for their effect on the pulp. This review discusses these concerns, which can lead to the conclusion that the use of dentinal bonding adhesives is a safe and biologically feasible procedure, whether it be in permanent or primary teeth.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H M Kopel. The pulp capping procedure in primary teeth "revisited".. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9391709/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Healing substrates with mobile, particle-filled microcapsules: designing a 'repair and go' system.

We model the rolling motion of a fluid-driven, particle-filled microcapsule along a heterogeneous, adhesive substrate to determine how the release of the encapsulated nanoparticles can be harnessed to repair damage on the underlying surface. We integrate the lattice Boltzmann model for hydrodynamics and the lattice spring model for the micromechanics of elastic solids to capture the interactions between the elastic shell of the microcapsule and the surrounding fluids. A Brownian dynamics model is used to simulate the release of nanoparticles from the capsule and their diffusion into the surrounding solution. We focus on a substrate that contains a damaged region (e.g. a crack or eroded surface coating), which prevents the otherwise mobile capsule from rolling along the surface. We isolate conditions where nanoparticles released from the arrested capsule can repair the damage and thereby enable the capsules to again move along the substrate. Through these studies, we establish guidelines for designing particle-filled microcapsules that perform a 'repair and go' function and thus, can be utilized to repair damage in microchannels and microfluidic devices.

Adhesives↗

Bonding to ground versus unground enamel in fluorosed teeth.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of grinding on the bonding effectiveness of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive to fluorosed enamel. METHODS: The teeth were classified using the Thylstrup and Fejerskov index (TFI). Fluorosed teeth (TFI=5) obtained from Isparta (Turkey) and control teeth (TFI=0) obtained from Leuven (Belgium) were used. Using a depth-marking diamond bur, 0.3mm of enamel was removed from mid-buccal and mid-palatal/lingual surfaces of the teeth, whereas the area adjacent to the ground area was left unprepared. A two-step self-etch (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray) and a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Optibond FL, Kerr) were used to bond the resin composite to the ground and unground enamel. Rectangular micro-specimens were prepared using the slow-speed diamond saw and tested in tensile to determine the micro-tensile bond strength (microTBS). RESULTS: The microTBS to unground fluorosed enamel was significantly lower than to ground fluorosed enamel for Clearfil Protect Bond (15.8+/-15.2 and 45.0+/-12.4MPa, p<0.0001) and for Optibond FL (35.5+/-21.4 and 50.5+/-12.3MPa, p<0.05), respectively. In control teeth, Clearfil Protect Bond bonded better to ground enamel (p<0.01), whereas OptiBond FL exhibited a similar bonding effectiveness to ground and unground enamel (p=0.0634). SIGNIFICANCE: Preparation of enamel improved the resin-enamel bond strength in fluorosed teeth. The bonding effectiveness to unground enamel was lower in fluorosed teeth than in control teeth for the self-etch adhesive tested.

Adhesives↗