Journal of Endodontics
Volume 28, Issue 7 , Pages 531-533, July 2002

Comparison of Carbon Dioxide versus Refrigerant Spray to Determine Pulpal Responsiveness

  • Vincent R. Jones, DDS
  • ,
  • Eric M. Rivera, DDS, MS

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress requests for reprints to Eric M. Rivera, DDS, MS, Department of Endodontics DSB #S-435, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Iowa City, IA 52242-1001.
  • ,
  • Richard E. Walton, DMD, MS

Dr. Jones was an endodontic resident, University of Iowa College of Dentistry and is currently affiliated with the United States Navy, NAVDENCEN NW, Bremerton, WA. Dr. Rivera is the department head, and Dr. Walton is professor, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Iowa City, IA.

There is little evidence for which cold delivery method is most accurate in determining pulp responsiveness. This study compared carbon dioxide dry ice sticks (CO2) versus refrigerant spray (RS) to generate a patient response from different types of teeth restored to varying degrees. Fifteen human patients were selected. In each quadrant, three teeth were identified and the restoration type recorded. Blindfolded patients were randomly tested with either CO2 or RS in a crossover design at two different sessions. Responsiveness was recorded as yes/no and the interval (in seconds) from application to response was determined. Results showed that (a) CO2 and RS were equivalent in producing a pulpal response regardless of tooth and presence of restoration, and (b) CO2 took significantly (p < 0.05) longer to evoke a response than RS using paired t tests. In conclusion, RS and CO2 were equivalent in determining pulpal responsiveness, but the elicited response from RS was faster.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 20.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0099-2399(05)60535-3

doi:10.1097/00004770-200207000-00011

Journal of Endodontics
Volume 28, Issue 7 , Pages 531-533, July 2002