Pantschev A, Carlsson A P, Andersson L
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Central Hospital, Västerås, Sweden.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994 Jul;78(1):101-4. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(94)90124-4.
This article presents a comparative clinical study of reinforced zinc oxide eugenol (EBA) cement and amalgam used as retrograde root filling materials. All patients were followed for a minimum of 3 years after surgery. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed. Successful healing with complete bone regeneration was noted in 57% in the reinforced zinc oxide eugenol group compared with 52% in the amalgam group. Uncertain healing with a certain degree of bone regeneration was seen in 24% in the reinforced zinc oxide eugenol group compared with 19% in the amalgam group. Unsuccessful healing with failure of bone regeneration was seen in 20% in the reinforced zinc oxide eugenol group compared with 29% in the amalgam group. Statistical analysis failed to show any significant difference in healing between the two retrograde filling materials. The results of this study indicate that retrograde root filling with reinforced zinc oxide eugenol cement has a similar prognosis as with amalgam over a 3-year period.
本文介绍了一项关于增强型氧化锌丁香酚（EBA）水门汀和汞合金作为根尖倒充填材料的对比临床研究。所有患者术后至少随访3年。进行了临床和影像学评估。增强型氧化锌丁香酚组57%实现了完全骨再生的成功愈合，而汞合金组为52%。增强型氧化锌丁香酚组24%出现了一定程度骨再生的不确定愈合，汞合金组为19%。增强型氧化锌丁香酚组20%出现了骨再生失败的不成功愈合，汞合金组为29%。统计学分析未显示两种根尖倒充填材料在愈合方面有任何显著差异。本研究结果表明，在3年期间，使用增强型氧化锌丁香酚水门汀进行根尖倒充填与使用汞合金的预后相似。
