PURPOSE: To investigate the periapical tissue response of 4 different retrograde root-filling materials, ie, intermediate restorative material, thermoplasticized gutta-percha, reinforced zinc oxide cement (Super-EBA), and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), in conjunction with an ultrasonic root-end preparation technique in an animal model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Vital roots of the third and fourth right mandibular premolars in 6 healthy mongrel dogs were apicectomized and sealed with 1 of the materials using a standardized surgical procedure. After 120 days, the animals were sacrificed and the specimens were analyzed radiologically, histologically, and scanning electron microscopically. The Fisher exact test was performed on the 2 outcome values. RESULTS: Twenty-three sections were analyzed histologically. Evaluation showed better re-establishment of the periapical tissues and generally lower inflammatory infiltration in the sections from teeth treated with the intermediate restorative material and the MTA. New root cement on the resected dentin surfaces was seen on all sections regardless of the used material. New hard tissue formation, directly on the surface of the material, was seen only in the MTA sections. There was no statistical difference in outcome among the tested materials. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this dog model favor the intermediate restorative material and MTA as retrograde fillings when evaluating the bone defect regeneration. MTA has the most favorable periapical tissue response when comparing the biocompatibility of the materials tested.
PURPOSE: To investigate the periapical tissue response of 4 different retrograde root-filling materials, ie, intermediate restorative material, thermoplasticized gutta-percha, reinforced zinc oxide cement (Super-EBA), and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), in conjunction with an ultrasonic root-end preparation technique in an animal model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Vital roots of the third and fourth right mandibular premolars in 6 healthy mongrel dogs were apicectomized and sealed with 1 of the materials using a standardized surgical procedure. After 120 days, the animals were sacrificed and the specimens were analyzed radiologically, histologically, and scanning electron microscopically. The Fisher exact test was performed on the 2 outcome values. RESULTS: Twenty-three sections were analyzed histologically. Evaluation showed better re-establishment of the periapical tissues and generally lower inflammatory infiltration in the sections from teeth treated with the intermediate restorative material and the MTA. New root cement on the resected dentin surfaces was seen on all sections regardless of the used material. New hard tissue formation, directly on the surface of the material, was seen only in the MTA sections. There was no statistical difference in outcome among the tested materials. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this dog model favor the intermediate restorative material and MTA as retrograde fillings when evaluating the bone defect regeneration. MTA has the most favorable periapical tissue response when comparing the biocompatibility of the materials tested.