Clinical Outcomes, Biocompatibility and Adaptability of Different Root End Filling Materials

Abstract

This study was designed to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes, biocompatibility and adaptability of three root end filling materials namelyTotalFill, MTA and IRM. Twenty four patients were included in this study. All the procedures were performed under local anesthesia.A buccal mucoperiosteal tissue flap was raised and sufficient bone was removed to expose the apex.Affected roots were then resected approximately 3 mm from the apex. Root end cavities were prepared with ultrasonic tip and were retrofilled with the tested materials. The patients were recalled every 3 months for 1 year to assess the clinical and radiographic signs of healing. Twenty four patients were divided into three equal groups of 8 patientseach according to the material used. • Group I: Root end cavities filled with TotalFill. • Group II: Root end cavities filled with MTA. • Group III: Root end cavities filled with IRM. Twenty four old male rats were used in this study.The dorsal skins of the animals were shaved under ether anesthesia and disinfected with 5% iodine solution. Four incisions were made on the back of each rat. Freshly mixed tested materials were placed in clean, sterile polyethylene tubes. One polyethylene tube was placed in each rat as a control. The skin was closed with 3/0 silk suture.The evaluations were made at 3, 7, and 21 days after surgical implantation. In each examination period, 8 animals were sacrificed by administrating high doses of anesthetics.The tubes and surrounding tissues were removed in blocks, fixed, sections and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histological examination under