Retrograde root filling with EBA cement or amalgam. A comparative clinical study.
This article presents a comparative clinical study of reinforced zinc oxide eugenol (EBA) cement and amalgam used as retrograde root filling materials. All patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years after surgery. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed. Successful healing with complete bone regeneration was noted in 57% in the reinforced zinc oxide eugenol group compared with 52% in the amalgam group. Uncertain healing with a certain degree of bone regeneration was seen in 24% in the reinforced zinc oxide eugenol group compared with 19% in the amalgam group. Unsuccessful healing with failure of bone regeneration was seen in 20% in the reinforced zinc oxide eugenol group compared with 29% in the amalgam group. Statistical analysis failed to show any significant difference in healing between the two retrograde filling materials. The results of this study indicate that retrograde root filling with reinforced zinc oxide eugenol cement has a similar prognosis as with amalgam over a 3-year period.
Pantschev
A
A
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Central Hospital, Västerås, Sweden.
Carlsson
A P
AP
Andersson
L
L
D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012184:Retrograde Obturation / Q000379:methods*; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement; D003723:Dental Amalgam; C084074:Super EBA