1PG, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: koustavsndhara@gmail.com
2Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Mithla Minority Dental College and Hospital, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Medical University, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email: shubhamprince418@gmail.com
3PG, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Email: anamitrachandra@gmail.com
4PG, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: kalitasanta108@gmail.com
5Senior Lecturer, Career Post Graduate Institute of Dental Science and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email: sabia47mansuri@gmail.com
6Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: dr.pratikagrawal07@gmail.com
Corresponding Author: Dr Pratik Agrawal
Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics
Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Email: dr.pratikagrawal07@gmail.com
Background: Successful periapical surgery depends largely on the biological and sealing properties of the root-end filling material. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) has long been considered the gold standard; however, Biodentine, a newer calcium silicate–based material, has gained popularity due to its improved handling and shorter setting time.
Aim: To compare the healing outcomes of MTA and Biodentine as root-end filling materials in surgical endodontics.
Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled clinical trial included 100 patients requiring periapical surgery. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: Group I (n=50) received MTA as the root-end filling material, and Group II (n=50) received Biodentine. Standardized apicoectomy and retrograde cavity preparation were performed. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months. Healing was assessed using clinical parameters and the Periapical Index (PAI) scoring system. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test and independent t-test, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results: At 12 months, the overall success rate was 90% in the MTA group and 94% in the Biodentine group, with no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). Complete radiographic healing was observed in 76% of MTA cases and 84% of Biodentine cases. Mean lesion size reduction was significantly greater in the Biodentine group (p=0.04).
Conclusion: Both MTA and Biodentine demonstrated favorable clinical and radiographic healing following periapical surgery. Although Biodentine showed slightly improved radiographic outcomes, overall success rates were comparable, suggesting that Biodentine is a reliable alternative to MTA for root-end filling in surgical endodontics.
Keywords: Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Biodentine, Surgical Endodontics, Root-End Filling, Periapical Healing.
How to cite this article: Dhara K, Prince S, Chandra A, Kalita S, Nasheen MS, Agrawal P. Comparison of healing outcomes of MTA and Biodentine as root end fillings in surgical Endodontics. Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(7s): 742-749; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.7s.79
Source of support: None
Conflict of interest: None