Purpose:
Compare placement of MTA and Super EBA in furcation perforations.
Materials/Methods:
N=90 teeth (Mandibular molar & premolars) of 9 adult mongrel dogs divided into 3 groups – Super EBA, MTA, control (n = 36, 36, 18). 1 side of each treated by either MTA or Super EBA.
All canals cleaned and shaped then obturated by lateral condensation + Grossman’s sealer. 1 week later, ISO size 014 perforation made in the furcation until bleeding was observed. Immediate repair by either MTA or Super EBA. Xray taken. Access was restored with amalgam. Dogs sacrificed at 1, 3, 6 months and their mandibles were removed. Serial sections made. H&E stain interpreted by 2 examiners.
Eval Criteria: (1) 0-3 scale of presence of # & type of inflammatory cells (absent, mild, moderate, severe). (2) type of healing present (soft tissue, hard tissue)
Results:
| 1 month | 3 month | 6 month | Tissue growth | |
| MTA | Mild inflamm | ↓ inflamm | No inflamm | Cementum in all by 6 months |
| Super EBA | Mod inflamm | ↓ inflamm | Same as 3 months | Inflamm present – irregular connective tissueNo inflamm – dense connective tissue |
| Control | No inflamm | No inflamm | No inflamm | Normal |
Clinical Significance:
No difference in success rate bw molars & premolars despite increased perforation-tooth ratio in premolars
(1)Both materials show increased rate of repair indicating good biocompatibility.
(2)MTA > Super EBA for furcation perforation repairs.