Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of four root canal filling materials for the treatment of chronic periapical periodontitis. METHODS: The clinical data of 200 patients with chronic periapical periodontitis from January 2023 to October 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the different filling materials, the patients were divided into four groups: Group A (C-Root SP group), Group B (AH Plus group), Group C (Apexit Plus group), and Group D (iRoot SP group), with 50 patients in each group. The overall effective rate, pain status (Visual Analog Scale, VAS score), and Perial Index (PAI) score were compared among the four groups. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in total effective rate among the four groups at 3 and 6 months after treatment (P > 0.05). At 12 months after treatment, the total effective rate of groups A, B, and D was significantly higher than that of group C (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in VAS scores among the four groups after treatment (P > 0.05). At 12 months after treatment, the PAI scores of groups A, B, and D were significantly lower than those of group C (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the short-term application effects of C-Root SP, AH Plus, Apexit Plus and iRoot SP in chronic periapical periodontitis, but the long-term effect and stability of Apexit Plus are relatively poor.