Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Long-term results of amalgam versus glass ionomer cement as apical sealant after apicectomy

1995; Elsevier BV; Volume: 79; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s1079-2104(05)80082-4

1528-395X

Per Jesslén, Lars Zetterqvist, Anders Heimdahl,

Dental Erosion and Treatment

A total of 67 teeth in 64 patients were treated with apicectomy and retrograde 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. Evaluation showed no difference in healing capacity between the two materials. Overall success rates in both groups were registered as 90% at 1 year and 85% at 5 years. Contamination with blood or saliva during insertion of the filling material did not affect healing adversely. The study 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 glass ionomer cement is a valid alternative to amalgam as an apical sealant after apicectomy with equally good long-term clinical results. A total of 67 teeth in 64 patients were treated with apicectomy and retrograde 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. Evaluation showed no difference in healing capacity between the two materials. Overall success rates in both groups were registered as 90% at 1 year and 85% at 5 years. Contamination with blood or saliva during insertion of the filling material did not affect healing adversely. The study 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 glass ionomer cement is a valid alternative to amalgam as an apical sealant after apicectomy with equally good long-term clinical results.