P. Jesslen et al., LONG-TERM RESULTS OF AMALGAM VERSUS GLASS-IONOMER CEMENT AS APICAL SEALANT AFTER APICECTOMY, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology and endodontics, 79(1), 1995, pp. 101-103
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Pathology,Surgery,"Dentistry,Oral Surgery & Medicine
A total of 67 teeth in 64 patients were treated with apicectomy and re
trograde 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. Evaluat
ion showed no difference in healing capacity between the two materials
. Overall success rates in both groups were registered as 90% at 1 yea
r and 85% at 5 years. Contamination with broad or saliva during insert
ion of the filling material did not affect healing adversely. The stud
y 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 gl
ass ionomer cement is a valid alternative to amalgam as an apical seal
ant after apicectomy with equally good long-term clinical results.