بررسي كلينيكي ميزان موفقيت دو ماده رتروفيل MTA و آمالگام

Clinical evaluation of MTA and Amalgam as a retrofitting material

Background & Aim: It is essential to use a reliable retrofill material in surgical endodontics in order to gain successful results. Past investigations showed that none of the available materials are ideal. Amalgam has been accepted as a retrofill material for many years. MTA has been suggested as a better replacement for amalgam recently. There has not been any report on MTA usage in human. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic succes of amalgam and MTA as a retrofill material. Method & Material: In order to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of amalgam and MTA as a retrofill material we followed 56 patients (72 roots) who had received surgically retrofilled treatment during the past three years. Results: In respect to the standard criteria for success and failure related to endodontics we found that 84.3% (43 roots) of amalgam retrofilled roots and 71.4% (15 roots) of MTA were categorized as successful cases. 5.9% (3 roots) with amalgam and 14.3% (3 roots) with MTA were classified as failure treatment. 9.8% (5 roots) with amalgam and 14.3% (3 r o o t s) 55 ith MTA were considered uncertain cases. Statistical analysis using chi square test revealed that there was not any significant differences (P>0.05) between amalgam and MTA as a retrotill material. Conclusion: Further investigations need to carry out in order to compare the success and failure of MTA and amalgam in human. Our clinical study showed no significant difference between MTA and Amalgam as a retrofill material.