A five-year study of Hydron root canal fillings.
A prospective clinical and radiographic study was conducted in order to compare Hydron and laterally condensed gutta-percha/AH-26 root canal fillings. Paralleling technique periapical radiographs were taken preoperatively, postoperatively and at recall appointments at post-treatment intervals of 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years and 5 years. Clinical examination at the recall appointments revealed no adverse signs or symptoms amongst all the patients who attended (mean attendance 44.5% at each interval). Radiographs were scored according to the periapical status of the treated root, and comparable bone healing rates were observed between the two root-filling materials. Among the patients attending recall appointments, there were no radiographic signs of failure of any of the 39 gutta-percha/AH-26 root canal fillings. However, three of the 35 canals filled with Hydron were classified as failures, and four required further assessment after the 5-year recall appointment. This study indicated that Hydron and gutta-percha/AH-26 root canal fillings were well accepted but, on the basis of radiographic assessment, success with gutta-percha/AH-26 was more predictable.
Reid
R J
RJ
The University of Adelaide, South Australia.
Abbott
P V
PV
McNamara
J R
JR
Heithersay
G S
GS
D001729:Bismuth; D001861:Bone Regeneration; D004338:Drug Combinations; D004853:Epoxy Resins; D006171:Gutta-Percha; D006801:Humans; D020100:Hydrogels; D008709:Methenamine; D011102:Polyhydroxyethyl Methacrylate / Q000031:analogs & derivatives*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; D012834:Silver; D014025:Titanium
D004338:Drug Combinations; D004853:Epoxy Resins; D020100:Hydrogels; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; C000257:polyhydroxyethyl methacrylate hydrogels; D011102:Polyhydroxyethyl Methacrylate; D012834:Silver; C028044:epoxy resin AH-26; D006171:Gutta-Percha; D014025:Titanium; D008709:Methenamine; D001729:Bismuth