Evaluation of the genotoxic effects of formocresol application in vital pulp therapy of primary teeth: a clinical study and meta-analysis
- 217 Downloads
This in vivo research investigated whether pulp treatments using formocresol for 7 days would cause mutagenic changes in children’s lymphocytes.
Materials and methods
The mutagenicity was tested in lymphocyte cultures established from the peripheral blood of children living in Brazil. The samples consisted of 2000 cells from teeth undergoing formocresol pulpotomies in which the formocresol pellet was sealed in the primary tooth for 7 days. It was removed on the seventh day, the base was placed, and the tooth was restored. Two venous blood samples (6–8 ml) were collected from each child; the first was prior to pulp therapy, and the second was 7 days later. Two thousand metaphases were analyzed. The level of significance adopted for the statistics was P < 0.05, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed combining this and two previous studies.
There was no significant difference found in the metaphase analysis between the blood samples taken before and after the pulpotomy treatment (Wilcoxon signed rank test); however, the meta-analysis showed a significant difference between the combined studies.
This study did not reveal any mutagenic effects, but based on the combined meta-analysis, we recommend the careful use of formocresol.
This research helps to bring scientific evidence of the safe use of formocresol in deciduous pulpotomy treatments.
KeywordsPulpotomy Formaldehyde Mutagenesis Formocresol Genotoxicity
The authors would like to thank the Brazilian Ministry of Education (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, CAPES) for their support during the development of this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The ethical committee of Medical Center Fernando Figueira Institute (IMIP – Brazil – IRB 748/2006) approved the study.
For all participating children, parents and/or guardians provided written informed consent.
- 1.American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (A.A.P.D.). Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. “http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/G_Pulp.pdf”. Accessed 20 July 2017
- 3.Buckley JP (1906) A rational treatment for putrescent pulps and their sequelae. Dental Cosmos 48:537–544Google Scholar
- 4.Buckley JP (1904) The chemistry of pulp decomposition with a rational treatment for this condition and its sequelae. Am Dent J 3:764–771Google Scholar
- 6.International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Formaldehyde. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. “http://www.monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationAlphaOrder.pdf” . Accessed 20 July 2017
- 8.Morawa AP, Straffon LH, Han SS, Corpron RE (1975) Clinical evaluation of pulpotomies using dilute formocresol. J Dent Child 42(5):360–363Google Scholar
- 9.Coll JA (2008) Indirect pulp capping and primary teeth: is the primary tooth pulpotomy out of date? Pediatric Dent 30:230–236Google Scholar
- 11.National Toxicology Program (2010) Final report on carcinogens background document for formaldehyde. Rep Carcinog Backgr Doc i:512Google Scholar
- 13.Abuabara A, Crozeta BM, Baratto-Filho F (2012) Review of pulp therapy in primary teeth. RSBO 9:474–477Google Scholar
- 17.Kirsch-Volders M, Sofuni T, Aardema M, Albertini S, Eastmond D, Fenech M, Ishidate M Jr, Kirchner S, Lorge E, Morita T, Norppa H, Surrallés J, Vanhauwaert A, Wakata A (2003) Report from the in vitro micronucleus assay working group. Mutat Res 540(2):153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2003.07.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Albertini RJ, Anderson D, Douglas GR, Hagmar L, Hemminki K, Merlo F, Natarajan AT, Norppa H, Shuker DEG, Tice R, Waters MD, Aitio A (2000) IPCS guidelines for monitoring the genotoxic effect of carcinogens in humans. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Mutat Res 463(2):111–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5742(00)00049-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.International Atomic Energy Agency (1986). Biological dosimetry: chromosomal aberrations analysis for dose assessment. Technical Report Series Number 260. ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 20.Cardoso L, Zembruski C, Fernandes DSC, Boff I, Pessin V (2005) Evaluation of prevalence of precocious losses of deciduous molars. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clin Integr 5:17–22Google Scholar
- 25.Ranly DM (1985) Assessment of the systemic distribution and toxicity of formaldehyde following pulpotomy treatment: part one. ASDC J Dent Child 6:431–435Google Scholar
- 28.Friedenson B (2011). Mutations in pathways depending on BRCA1 and BRCA2 may increase cancer risks from an environmental carcinogenic. Nat Proc. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2011.5669.1
- 29.Symington L, Gautier J (2011) Double-strand break and resection and repair pathway choice. Annu Rev Genet 45(1):247–271. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132435 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Smaïl-Faugeron V. et al. (2014) Pulp treatment for extensive decal in primary teeth (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1–193Google Scholar
- 32.Hugar SM, Reddy R, Deshpande SD, Shigli A, Gokhale NS, Hugar SS (2017) In vivo comparative evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars: a 60-month follow-up study. Contemp Clin Dent 8(1):122–127. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_849_16 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Coll JA, Seale NS, Vargas K, Marghalani AA, Al Shamali S, Graham L (2017) Primary tooth vital pulp therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediat Dent 39(1):16–123Google Scholar