Based on the limited results of this eight-week comparison of formocresol and glutaraldehyde, it would appear that glutaraldehyde may offer distinct advantages over formocresol, in the treatment of cariously exposed primary and young permanent teeth. In particular, due to its chemical structure, it is more active in fixing the surface tissues and is more rapidly limited in its depth of penetration through these tissues. Glutaraldehyde does not exhibit as significant an ability to induce the total loss of vitality, in the radicular pulp tissues. The progression of formocresol treated pulps to apparent fibrotic replacement via granulation-tissue ingrowth, through the apex, does not occur with the glutaraldehyde-treated pulp tissues. There may, however, be a slow progression of fibrotic replacement of the glutaraldehyde fixed tissue, in the coronal portion of the radicular pulp. Perhaps most importantly it would seem that since the glutaraldehyde does not perfuse the tissues to the apex, it will not demonstrate systemic distribution and other extradental phenomena, as have been identified with the use of formocresol