What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of various antibiotic pastes used as intracanal medicaments in regenerative endodontics.

June 3, 2026Cureus0 citationsOpen Access

The Outcome of Double Antibiotic, Triple Antibiotic, and Modified Triple Antibiotic Pastes as an Intracanal Medicament in Regenerative Endodontics: A Comparative Study

TDTakhellambam P Devi SPShamurailatpam Priyadarshini KSKangjam Gunadhar SinghRegional Institute of Medical Sciences

Key Points

This study aims to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of various antibiotic pastes used as intracanal medicaments in regenerative endodontics.
51 non-vital immature permanent teeth from patients aged 12-25 were included in the study.
Teeth were randomly assigned to receive double antibiotic paste (DAP), triple antibiotic paste (TAP), or modified triple antibiotic paste (mTAP).
Clinical and radiographic follow-ups were performed at 12 and 24 months post-treatment.
At 12 months, success rates were 87.50% (DAP), 88.24% (TAP), and 82.35% (mTAP), with no significant differences (p=0.999).
At 24 months, success rates were 68.75% (DAP), 81.25% (TAP), and 73.33% (mTAP), with no significant differences (p=0.775).

Abstract

Background Antibiotic paste plays a vital role in the success of regenerative endodontics. Triple antibiotic paste (TAP) and double antibiotic paste (DAP) are commonly used as intracanal medicaments, with tooth discoloration being a main concern for TAP. Clindamycin is a broad-spectrum antibiotic and does not cause visible tooth discoloration. This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of regenerative endodontics using DAP, TAP, and modified triple antibiotic paste (mTAP) as intracanal medicaments. Methodology A total of 51 non-vital immature permanent teeth from 51 patients aged 12-25 years were included in this comparative study. The teeth were randomly allocated into the following three groups (n = 17) based on the intracanal medicament used: Group I: DAP was used as an intracanal medicament; Group II: TAP was used as an intracanal medicament; and Group III: mTAP, in which the minocycline of TAP was replaced by clindamycin, was used as an intracanal medicament. After completion of regenerative endodontic treatment, the teeth were followed clinically and radiographically at 12 and 24 months. The chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare the outcome of regenerative endodontics among the three groups. Results At the 12-month follow-up, the success rates for regenerative endodontics were 87.50%, 88.24%, and 82.35% for the DAP, TAP, and mTAP groups, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.999). At the 24-month follow-up, the success rates for regenerative endodontics were 68.75%, 81.25%, and 73.33% for the DAP, TAP, and mTAP groups, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.775). Conclusions Regenerative endodontics using DAP, TAP, and mTAP as intracanal medicaments have high success rates with no statistically significant differences among the three. mTAP, in which the minocycline of TAP is replaced by clindamycin, can also be used as an intracanal medicament in regenerative endodontics.

AI에게 질문

Bookmark

View Full Paper