A Five‐year study of Hydron root canal fillings

A prospective clinical and radiographic study was conducted in order to compare Hydron and laterally condensed gutta‐percha/AH‐26 root canal fillings. Paralleling technique periapical radiographs were taken pre‐operatively, postoperatively and at recall appointments at post‐treatment intervals of 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years and 5 years. Clinical examination at the recall appointments revealed no adverse signs or symptoms amongst all the patients who attended (mean attendance 44.5% at each interval). Radiographs were scored according to the periapical status of the treated root, and comparable bone healing rates were observed between the two root‐filling materials. Among the patients attending recall appointments, there were no radio‐graphic signs of failure of any of the 39 gutta‐percha/ AH‐26 root canal fillings. However, three of the 35 canals tilled with Hydron were classified as failures, and four required further assessment after the 5‐year recall appointment. This study indicated that Hydron and gutta‐percha/AH‐26 root canal fillings were well accepted but, on the basis of radiographic assessment, success with gutta‐percha/AH‐26 was more predictable.