الفهرس 
Evaluation of the Success Rate of 3Mixstatin as compared to Tri-Antibiotic Mix and Simvastatin in the Treatment of Primary Molars with Inflammatory Root Resorption A Randomized Clinical Trial
ِAbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 197 |  |  |
| | | from | 197 | | |
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to determine whether the success rate of pulp therapy of primary molars
with signs and symptoms of odontogenic infection and inflammatory root resorption will improve with
the use of the simvastatin alone, the Tri-Antibiotic Mix alone, or when in combination together
3Mixstatin as a component in the root filling material.
Methodology: Lesion Sterilization and tissue repair was employed in the treatment of 45 nonvital primary molars exhibiting inflammatory root resorption and furcation radiolucency. The molars
vii
included in the study were randomly allocated into three equal groups. All root canals were instrumented
1mm from the radiographic apex, and an obturation mix was used to fill the canals to avoid the hollow
tube effect. Triple antibiotic paste (TAP) was prepared by mixing ciprofloxacin, cefixime, and
metronidazole in a 1:1:1 ratio. It was used as the active agent in group I and mixed with zinc oxide
powder and polyethylene glycol + propylene glycol as a vehicle to prepare a filling material. For group
II, TAP was mixed with simvastatin to form 3 mixstatin, while in group III, simvastatin was used as the
active agent alone. Following pulp therapy, all teeth were restored with stainless steel crowns, 1-week
postoperative. Clinical evaluation was carried out at 1 week postoperative, then at 3, 6, and 12 months
while radiographic evaluation was carried out at 6 and 12 months using predetermined criteria.
Results: the use of LSTR associated with the instrumentation of the root canals and obturation
with filling materials that have an antimicrobial or anti-inflammatory effect improved the outcome of
primary molars with questionable prognosis. There was a non-significant difference in the clinical
outcome between the triple antibiotic paste, simvastatin, or 3 mixstatin. For radiographic outcome, which
corresponded to the overall outcome, there was also a non-significant difference between the 3 groups.
However, for the secondary outcome, which was an increase of bone density in the furcation area, the
was a significant difference, with simvastatin showing the greatest improvement.
Conclusions: The use of both triple antibiotic paste and simvastatin either alone or in
combination has shown an improved survival rate in primary molars presenting with inflammatory root
resorption or pretreatment radiolucency. Simvastatin shows promise as a component in root filling
materials of primary molars requiring non-vital pulp treatment since it is a biocompatible material with
anti-inflammatory and osteogenic properties