Clinical and radiographic evaluation of “Endoflas” versus “Zinc Oxide and Eugenol” as root canal filling material in primary molars: A randomized controlled trial.

Summary and conclusion The current study was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of Endoflas and ZnOE used as root canal filling material in the treatment of primary molars indicated for pulpectomy. The study sample included eighty four (84) primary mandibular molars in (47) children ranging in age from 4 to 7 years. Children were selected from the outpatient clinic of the Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. An informed consent was signed by the patients’ parents, who were informed that this is a relatively new material and full detailed treatment plan was explained to them. Furthermore, they were told that follow-up appointments were obligatory to assess the outcomes of initial treatment and to discuss other treatment options if this treatment failed to meet expected goals. After clinical and radiographic examination, teeth selection was done according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, the selected teeth were equally divided into two groups (N=42). • Group (A): 42 molars treated with Endoflas. • Group (B): 42 molars treated with ZnOE. Pulpectomies for both groups were done by main investigator. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was done after 3, 6, and 9 months postoperative period. Results of this study showed the following: 1. Endoflas showed 100% clinical success. No clinical failure could be detected in Endoflas group while 2 cases (5.6%) showed failure in ZnOE group, with statistically insignificant difference between them. 2. Endoflas showed 82.9% radiographic success while ZnOE showed 52.8%, with highly statistically significant difference between them. 3. The number of cases showing clinical and radiographic success in Endoflas group and ZnOE group were 29 (82.9%) and 19 (52.8%) respectively, with highly statistically significant difference between them. From this study, it was concluded that: 1. Endoflas was more successful as obturating material than ZnOE. 2. Clinical failure was presented as tooth mobility in ZnOE group only. 3. Radiographic failure was reported in both groups with low rate in Endoflas group. 4. Among radiographic signs of failure, it was found that the most commonly observed radiographic sign in both groups was periapical radiolucency followed by furcation involovement and external root resorption. 5. The clinical success in both groups was higher than radiographic success. 6. Overall clinical and radiographic success rates were higher in Endoflas group.