Moti Moskovitz1, Eid Sammara, Gideon Holan. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, The Hebrew University, Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, P.O. Box 12272, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel. mosko2@yahoo.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present retrospective large-scale study is to evaluate rate of success of root canal treatments in primary infected molars using Endoflas F.S as a filling material. METHODS: The study material consisted of 382 records of root canal treated primary molars of which 174 teeth with high quality radiographs and sufficient data comprised the 'study group'. The technique for root canal treatment in one visit is described. Treatment was considered success if clinically the tooth was asymptomatic and radiographs showed decrease or no change in pre-existing pathologic radiolucent defects. RESULTS: In the total pulpectomy group there was a statistically significant difference between mandibular teeth presented with a periapical lesion prior to the treatment compared to maxillary teeth. This difference was not significant in the study group. Decrease in post treatment radicular radiographic defects was statistically significant more in the maxilla compared to the mandible. The success rate of teeth restored with a permanent restoration (stainless steel crown or amalgam filling) was statistically significant higher than those teeth left with a temporary filling. There was no statistically significant difference between success rate and the extent of root canal filling material. Rate of success was not statistically different depending on pre-existing radiolucent area prior to RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Endoflas F.S. can be used as an alternative root canal filling material for primary teeth. One condition for success is the prevention of microleakage. A permanent restoration should be placed as soon as possible after clinical signs and symptoms of inflammation are eliminated.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present retrospective large-scale study is to evaluate rate of success of root canal treatments in primary infected molars using Endoflas F.S as a filling material. METHODS: The study material consisted of 382 records of root canal treated primary molars of which 174 teeth with high quality radiographs and sufficient data comprised the 'study group'. The technique for root canal treatment in one visit is described. Treatment was considered success if clinically the tooth was asymptomatic and radiographs showed decrease or no change in pre-existing pathologic radiolucent defects. RESULTS: In the total pulpectomy group there was a statistically significant difference between mandibular teeth presented with a periapical lesion prior to the treatment compared to maxillary teeth. This difference was not significant in the study group. Decrease in post treatment radicular radiographic defects was statistically significant more in the maxilla compared to the mandible. The success rate of teeth restored with a permanent restoration (stainless steel crown or amalgam filling) was statistically significant higher than those teeth left with a temporary filling. There was no statistically significant difference between success rate and the extent of root canal filling material. Rate of success was not statistically different depending on pre-existing radiolucent area prior to RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Endoflas F.S. can be used as an alternative root canal filling material for primary teeth. One condition for success is the prevention of microleakage. A permanent restoration should be placed as soon as possible after clinical signs and symptoms of inflammation are eliminated.