الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 145 |  |  |
| | | from | 145 | | |
Abstract
Non-vital pulp therapy of primary molars is a great challenge in pediatric dentistry. But it has a great importance because it preserves asymptomatic and functional primary teeth in place. Therefore, many treatment modalities were practiced.
Although, pulpectomy is the gold standard treatment for non- vital primary teeth. However due to the variation, complexity and mixed microbial nature of the root canal system of primary molars, and the lack of the ideal disinfection technique and obturation material, pulpectomy is a controversial treatment.
Recently, regenerative endodontics has witnessed great improvements. It has a vital role in periapical healing, restoring the natural immune system and obtaining a biological obturation material. Moreover, studies investigated regenerative endodontic procedure in mature teeth have reported a great success.
The aim of the presented double-blinded randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of regenerative endodontics in non-vital primary teeth using two different intracanal medication in comparison to the conventional zinc oxide eugenol pulpectomy.
Fifty-four non-vital primary molars were randomly allocated to the three treatment groups. group A was treated by the conventional pulpectomy using manual files for mechanical preparations and conventional ZOE as an obturation material. Group
B was treated by regenerative endodontics using 5 mg/ml concentration of modified triple antibiotic paste (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and amoxicillin) as an intracanal medication. group C was treated by regenerative endodontics using Metapex as an intracanal medication. Regeneration approach was through induction of bleeding and using EDTA to release growth factors from dentine.
All teeth were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 6 and 12 months by the same evaluator, following the clinical parameters (abscess /fistula, pain on palpation, pain on percussion, pathological mobility and pain) and radiographic parameters ( pathological root resorption, periapical/ furcation radiolucency and canal calcification)
The results of this study regarding the clinical evaluation showed that all clinical parameters showed non-statically significant differences between the 3 groups over the 6 months as well as the 12 months follow up.
Overall clinical success: group (A) 88.9 %, group (B) 77.8 % and group (C) 83.3 %. Without a statically significant differences between the 3 intervention groups.
The results of this study regarding the radiographic evaluation showed that all radiographic parameters showed non-statically significant differences between the 3 groups over the 6 months as well as the 12 months follow up.
Overall Radiographic success: group (A) 77.7 %, group (B) 55.5 % and group (C) 77.7 %. Without a statically significant differences between the 3 intervention groups.