ns Go Y

iss s. e i w ass balanced by employing 2 teeth in each patient by which study had reported good clinical follow-up results the healing responses to both capping measures could be compared in one and the same individual. But what would the rationale be for adding such a tissue-destructive agent as phenol to the pulpal wounds? Already calcium hydroxide was known to be severely caustic and thus potentially harmful. Yet surprisingly, prior clinical3 and histologic observations4 had indi-cated that CH promoted pulpal healing and hard tissue repair, something that most other materials previously following ‘‘phenolizing’ ’ pulps prior to capping decid-uous teeth,5 and another paper had advocated phenol for disinfection of the wound site following caries excavation.6 Zander and Glass reasoned that it could well be that the calcium hydroxide paste per se was not the critical factor but more so the tissue necrosis it induced. That prompted them to include phenol to cauterize the exposed pulps to be capped by either CH or ZOE and thereby explore, for the first time, a potential mechanism inherent in the healing process of the pulp to a direct exposure. The findings revealed that a 2-minute application of phenol, although causing an initial but superficial tissue necrosis, did not change the pattern of tissue responses for either capping mode. Although pulps remained vital, ZOE-capped pulps continued to display inflammation aProfessor Emeritus, Faculty of Odontology. Received for publication Mar 23, 2005; returned for revision Mar 23, 2005; accepted for publication Mar 24, 2005. 1079-2104/ $- see front matte