Related Experiment Videos
A five-year study of Hydron root canal fillings
R J Reid1, P V Abbott, J R McNamara
1The University of Adelaide, South Australia.
International Endodontic Journal
|July 1, 1992
Summary
This study compared Hydron and gutta-percha/AH-26 for root canal fillings. Gutta-percha/AH-26 showed more predictable success rates radiographically, with no failures observed in treated canals.
Area of Science:
- Endodontics
- Dental Materials Science
Background:
- Root canal filling materials are crucial for endodontic treatment success.
- Comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes of different filling materials is essential for evidence-based practice.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Hydron versus laterally condensed gutta-percha/AH-26 for root canal fillings.
- To assess the long-term success rates and predictability of these two root canal filling materials.
Main Methods:
- A prospective clinical and radiographic study design.
- Inclusion of paralleling technique periapical radiographs taken at multiple time points (preoperative, postoperative, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, and 5 years).
- Clinical examinations and radiographic scoring for periapical status and bone healing.
Main Results:
- Both Hydron and gutta-percha/AH-26 root canal fillings were clinically well-accepted, with no adverse signs or symptoms reported.
- Comparable bone healing rates were observed between the two materials.
- Radiographic assessment revealed no failures among 39 gutta-percha/AH-26 fillings, while three out of 35 Hydron fillings were classified as failures, and four required further assessment.
Conclusions:
- Hydron and gutta-percha/AH-26 are both viable root canal filling materials.
- Gutta-percha/AH-26 demonstrated more predictable success based on radiographic evaluation over a 5-year period.