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

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 differ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology and endodontics oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology and endodontics, 1995, Vol.79 (1), p.101-103
Main Authors: Jesslén, Per, Zetterqvist, Lars, Heimdahl, Anders
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aluminum Silicates
Apicoectomy
Dental Amalgam
Dentistry
Follow-Up Studies
Glass Ionomer Cements
Humans
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
Retrograde Obturation - methods
Root Canal Filling Materials
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1079-2104
1528-395X
DOI:10.1016/S1079-2104(05)80082-4