Hakan Arslan1, Hany Mohamed Aly Ahmed2, Yavuz Şahin3, Ezgi Doğanay Yıldız4, Eyup Candas Gündoğdu5, Yahya Güven6, Ruslan Khalilov5. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Health Sciences University, İstanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: dt_hakan82@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 3. Department of Medical Genetics, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey. 5. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey. 6. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This preliminary study compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) with that of conventional root canal treatment (CRCT) in necrotic mature teeth with periapical radiolucencies. METHODS:Fifty-six mature necrotic teeth with large periapical radiolucencies were distributed into 2 groups: group 1, REPs and group 2, CRCT (n = 28/group). Clinical and radiographic follow-up assessments were undertaken up to 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the independent samples t test and the chi-square test, and the level of significance was set at P = .05. RESULTS: With a follow-up rate of about 73.4% of the total patients for 12 months, favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were found in 92.3% and 80% in REPs and CRCT groups, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). Half of the teeth treated with REPs responded to the electric pulp test. CONCLUSIONS:Regenerative endodontic procedures have the potential to be used as a treatment option for mature teeth with large periapical radiolucencies.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This preliminary study compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) with that of conventional root canal treatment (CRCT) in necrotic mature teeth with periapical radiolucencies. METHODS: Fifty-six mature necrotic teeth with large periapical radiolucencies were distributed into 2 groups: group 1, REPs and group 2, CRCT (n = 28/group). Clinical and radiographic follow-up assessments were undertaken up to 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the independent samples t test and the chi-square test, and the level of significance was set at P = .05. RESULTS: With a follow-up rate of about 73.4% of the total patients for 12 months, favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were found in 92.3% and 80% in REPs and CRCT groups, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). Half of the teeth treated with REPs responded to the electric pulp test. CONCLUSIONS: Regenerative endodontic procedures have the potential to be used as a treatment option for mature teeth with large periapical radiolucencies.