Long-term results of amalgam versus glass ionomer cement as apical sealant after apicectomy.
A total of 67 teeth in 64 patients were treated with apicectomy and retrograde fillings. They were randomized to receive fillings of amalgam or glass ionomer cement in a comparative clinical study. Healing was evaluated clinically and radiographically after 1 and 5 years. Evaluation showed no difference in healing capacity between the two materials. Overall success rates in both groups were registered as 90% at 1 year and 85% at 5 years. Contamination with blood or saliva during insertion of the filling material did not affect healing adversely. The study shows that the 5-year follow-up result can be predicted in more than 95% of the cases at the 1-year follow-up. It can be concluded that glass ionomer cement is a valid alternative to amalgam as an apical sealant after apicectomy with equally good long-term clinical results.
Jesslén
P
P
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge Hospital.
Zetterqvist
L
L
Heimdahl
A
A
D000538:Aluminum Silicates; D001047:Apicoectomy; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D012184:Retrograde Obturation / Q000379:methods*; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D000538:Aluminum Silicates; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; C041332:amalcap; D003723:Dental Amalgam; C039733:Chemfil