Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Healing of Periapical Lesions Using MTA or Conventional Filling Materials: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the effect of MTA versus conventional filling materials on the healing of teeth with periapical lesions. Materials and methods Sixty-four teeth with periapical lesions of greater than 5 mm were divided into two groups; G1) MTA (ProRoot MTA; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) filling, G2) conventional filling materials (n = 32/group). In MTA group, the apical portion of the root canal was filled with ProRoot MTA and the middle and coronal thirds of the root canal were filled with injectable thermoplasticized gutta-percha system. Patients were followed for 15 months. The data were statistically analyzed with Mann-Whitney U and chi-square test (P = 0.05). Results With a follow-up rate of 89.06% of all patients for 15 months, favorable outcomes were obtained in 100% in ProRoot MTA and 83.3% in conventional technique. (P < 0.05). Conclusions ProRoot MTA showed better results compared to conventional filling materials in teeth with periapical radiolucency.