Clinical performance of three endodontic sealers.

TLDR: it analysis provided optimal discrimination between subgroups of roots with regard to the radiographic status of the periapical tissues as a measure of the clinical performance of the materials, and it was concluded that the perapical index is a useful discriminatory tool for assessment of treatment results in endodontics.

Abstract: The clinical performance of three endodontic sealers, AH 26®, Kloroperka N-O® and ProcoSol®, was assessed in a prospective study of endodontic treatment in 810 roots. The roots were treated by undergraduate students according to a standardized procedure, and were filled with laterally condensed gutta-percha and sealer. The sealer was randomly selected just prior to filling. The patients were recalled yearly for 4 years for a clinical and radiographic control examination, and the radiographs were scored using the periapical index (PAI) scoring system. Ridit analysis provided optimal discrimination between subgroups of roots with regard to the radiographic status of the periapical tissues as a measure of the clinical performance of the materials. The periapical status of roots filled with AH 26® or ProcoSol® was better than that of roots filled with Kloroperka®. The difference was significant after 1 year and persisted through the 4-year observation period. The difference was also evident after stratification of the material with regard to preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnoses. It is concluded that the choice of sealer may influence the outcome of endodontic treatment, and that the perapical index is a useful discriminatory tool for assessment of treatment results in endodontics.