Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 253

1.

Evidence-based assessment: evaluation of the formocresol versus ferric sulfate primary molar pulpotomy.

Loh A, O'Hoy P, Tran X, Charles R, Hughes A, Kubo K, Messer LB.

Pediatr Dent. 2004 Sep-Oct;26(5):401-9.

PMID:
15460294
3.

A clinical study of ferric sulfate as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth.

Fei AL, Udin RD, Johnson R.

Pediatr Dent. 1991 Nov-Dec;13(6):327-32.

PMID:
1843987
4.

Evaluation of three pulpotomy medicaments in primary teeth.

Markovic D, Zivojinovic V, Vucetic M.

Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2005 Sep;6(3):133-8.

PMID:
16216093
5.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molars after formocresol and electrosurgical pulpotomy: a randomized clinical trial.

Bahrololoomi Z, Moeintaghavi A, Emtiazi M, Hosseini G.

Indian J Dent Res. 2008 Jul-Sep;19(3):219-23.

6.
7.
8.

Primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Lin PY, Chen HS, Wang YH, Tu YK.

J Dent. 2014 Sep;42(9):1060-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.001. Epub 2014 Feb 7. Review.

PMID:
24513112
9.

Success rates of mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol pulpotomies: a 24-month study.

Erdem AP, Guven Y, Balli B, Ilhan B, Sepet E, Ulukapi I, Aktoren O.

Pediatr Dent. 2011 Mar-Apr;33(2):165-70.

PMID:
21703067
10.

Evaluation of formocresol versus ferric sulphate primary molar pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peng L, Ye L, Guo X, Tan H, Zhou X, Wang C, Li R.

Int Endod J. 2007 Oct;40(10):751-7. Epub 2007 Aug 22. Review.

PMID:
17714467
11.

Ferric sulfate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty month clinical follow-up.

Ibricevic H, al-Jame Q.

J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2000 Summer;24(4):269-72.

PMID:
11314410
12.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulpotomies in primary molars with formocresol, glutaraldehyde and ferric sulphate.

Havale R, Anegundi RT, Indushekar K, Sudha P.

Oral Health Dent Manag. 2013 Mar;12(1):24-31.

PMID:
23474578
13.

Mineral trioxide aggregate as a pulpotomy medicament: an evidence-based assessment.

Ng FK, Messer LB.

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2008 Jun;9(2):58-73. Review.

PMID:
18534173
14.

Ferric sulphate and formocresol in pulpotomy of primary molars: long term follow-up study.

Ibricevic H, Al-Jame Q.

Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003 Mar;4(1):28-32.

PMID:
12870985
16.

Ferric sulfate and formocresol.

Fuks AB, Eidelman E.

Pediatr Dent. 2005 Mar-Apr;27(2):97. No abstract available.

PMID:
15926285
17.

Pulp response to ferric sulfate, diluted formocresol and IRM in pulpotomized primary baboon teeth.

Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Cleaton-Jones P, Michaeli Y.

ASDC J Dent Child. 1997 Jul-Aug;64(4):254-9.

PMID:
9328676
18.

Evaluation of the formocresol versus mineral trioxide aggregate primary molar pulpotomy: a meta-analysis.

Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, Zhou X.

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Dec;102(6):e40-4. Epub 2006 Sep 26. Review.

PMID:
17138165
19.

Comparison of bioactive glass, mineral trioxide aggregate, ferric sulfate, and formocresol as pulpotomy agents in rat molar.

Salako N, Joseph B, Ritwik P, Salonen J, John P, Junaid TA.

Dent Traumatol. 2003 Dec;19(6):314-20.

PMID:
15022999
20.

Evidence of pulpotomy in primary teeth comparing MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, and electrosurgery with formocresol.

Stringhini Junior E, Vitcel ME, Oliveira LB.

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015 Aug;16(4):303-12. doi: 10.1007/s40368-015-0174-z. Epub 2015 Apr 2. Review.

PMID:
25833280

Supplemental Content

Support Center