Super-EBA and IRM for retrograde root filing

Abstract

DesignRandomised controlled trial.InterventionTwo hundred and six consecutive teeth in 164 patients (99 women and 65 men) were prepared using ultrasonic retrograde root canal treatment and randomly assigned to restoration with either IRM (99 teeth) or super-EBA (107 teeth) using a standard randomisation table. Only those teeth with obvious root fractures or advanced periodontal disease were excluded. Teeth were evaluated at least one year post-operatively (range 12-21 months, average 13) clinically and radiographically. [eg number of participants, inclusion/exclusion criteria, number receiving intervention, description of intervention, randomisation, blinding, etc.]Outcome measuresOutcomes were success or failure. Clinically failure was apparent if there was tenderness on percussion or palpation of the crown and/or in the apical area, gingival swelling or presence of a fistula or an apicomarginal communication. Radiographically, failure was when there was evidence of uncertain healing or unsatisfactory healing. Complete healing and scar formation were considered to be successful.ResultsOne hundred and ninety-four teeth (96 IRM and 98 Super-EBA) in 153 patients were assessed. The drop-outs were eight teeth (two IRM and six Super-EBA) in seven patients. Four teeth (one IRM and three Super-EBA) were excluded owing to root fractures discovered during the follow-up period. There was no statistical significance between the two groups (IRM and Super-EBA) regarding the healing outcome as it applied to all types of teeth. Of the IRM teeth 87 (90.6%) were successful. Of the Super-EBA group 80 were successful (81.6%) – no confidence intervals are reported but p=0.096 and is therefore not significant.ConclusionsBoth IRM and Super-EBA can serve as satisfactory retrograde root-filling materials.