Alexander Pantchev1, Eva Nohlert, Ake Tegelberg. 1. Department of Oral Rehabilitation/Endodontics, Central Hospital, SE-721 89, Västerås, Sweden. alexander.pantchev@ltv.se
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the use of bioactive glass, PerioGlas, after retrograde filling with Super EBA cement in the treatment of periapical bone destruction. STUDY DESIGN: Healing outcomes were followed up after endodontic surgery in 186 teeth. Outcomes were divided into two groups according to follow-up time: short- and long-term. The EBA group (n = 110) underwent endodontic surgery and retrograde filling with EBA cement. In the EBA + PerioGlas group (n = 76), PerioGlas was embedded in the bone cavity after retrograde filling. RESULTS: The success rate in the EBA + PerioGlas group was 72% compared with 56% in the Super EBA group at the short-term follow-up and 74% and 84%, respectively, at the long-term follow-up. Healing of periapical bone destruction classified as uncertain at the short-term follow-up was considered successful in two out of three cases at the long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study found that PerioGlas as bone substitute did not significantly improve endodontic healing outcome.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the use of bioactive glass, PerioGlas, after retrograde filling with Super EBA cement in the treatment of periapical bone destruction. STUDY DESIGN: Healing outcomes were followed up after endodontic surgery in 186 teeth. Outcomes were divided into two groups according to follow-up time: short- and long-term. The EBA group (n = 110) underwent endodontic surgery and retrograde filling with EBA cement. In the EBA + PerioGlas group (n = 76), PerioGlas was embedded in the bone cavity after retrograde filling. RESULTS: The success rate in the EBA + PerioGlas group was 72% compared with 56% in the Super EBA group at the short-term follow-up and 74% and 84%, respectively, at the long-term follow-up. Healing of periapical bone destruction classified as uncertain at the short-term follow-up was considered successful in two out of three cases at the long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study found that PerioGlas as bone substitute did not significantly improve endodontic healing outcome.
Authors: J S Zamet; U R Darbar; G S Griffiths; J S Bulman; U Brägger; W Bürgin; H N Newman Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: H Oonishi; S Kushitani; E Yasukawa; H Iwaki; L L Hench; J Wilson; E Tsuji; T Sugihara Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 4.176