Periapical tissue responses and cementum regeneration with amalgam, SuperEBA, and MTA as root-end filling materials.

By Baek SH, Plenk H Jr, Kim S

Date: 08/1991
Journal: JOE


to compare PA reactions as well as cementum regeneration in contact with amalgam, SuperEBA and MTA in dogs teeth using the undecalcified ground section technique.

Materials and Methods:

n: 5 beagle dogs n:24 roots, induction of PAL by placing paper points contaminated with plaque and sealed with IRM for 2 weeks, PAL formed between 4-6 wk. Teeth were then RC treated and apicectomy was done

under an OM. The resected roots were divided to 3 Gps (Gp.A: filled with Amalgam, Gp.B: Super EBA Gp. C: filled with MTA)

Dogs were sacrificed and jaws were sectioned, deminerlized, and stained with Giemsa solution. Contact-microradiographs were prepared.  Sections were evaluated by two histologists.


  ¯Inflammation at tissues adjacent to the filling material was sig different between MTA & Super EBA to Amalgam

¯ MTA: minor degree of inflammatory cell infiltrates (Fig. 1C).

¯SuperEBA fillings:  Moderate numbers of inflammatory cell infiltrates and some PMNs (Fig. 1B).

¯Amalgam: marked inflammatory cell infiltrate, composed primarily of PMNs (Fig. 1A).

¯A cementum-like material growing over the MTA in 7/9 sections and was sig diff to super EBA and Amalgam.

¯Two types of surface reactions over MTA were a crystalline-like structure (Fig. 2A) and newly deposited cementum (Fig. 2 B, C) that started mostly from the adjacent dentin, but was sometimes also found in islands, and finally appeared as mineralized cellular cementum.

¯Clinical significance:

MTA showed the most favorable periapical tissue response, with neoformation of cemental coverage over MTA