Background: An ideal root canal filling material must possess the necessary properties of being antibacterial, resorbable at the same rate of the root and harmless to periapical tissues and the developing tooth bud.We planned this study to compare endoflas and zinc oxide eugenol clinically after 3, 6, and 9 month’s postoperative period. Materials and methods: For the study, sample comprising of 35 primary molars from among patients aged 4-9 years reporting to department were selected. The teeth having history of spontaneous pain, presence of an abscess or a fistula, gingival swelling, pain on percussion, and radiograph revealing inter-radicular radiolucency were included in the study. The selected teeth were randomly divided into two groups of 18 (endoflas, Group I) and 17 (zinc oxide eugenol, Group II) teeth. Results: Statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) was seen between the two groups at postoperative 3 months follow-up for pain and tenderness. There were no extractions or failures in the endoflas group. In contrast, four teeth had to be extracted in the zinc oxide eugenol group 2 weeks postobturation. Radio graphically, the teeth were assessed for changes in the interradicular radiolucency. In endoflas, 100% decrease was seen in the size of interradicular radiolucency at the end of 9 months. In zinc oxide eugenol, a decrease of 45% was observed. Conclusion: This study indicates that endoflas with a success rate of 100% is a much better material compared with zinc oxide eugenol and should be widely used as a root canal filling material for deciduous dentition considering the drawbacks of zinc oxide eugenol.
Keywords: Endoflas, pulpectomy, zinc oxide eugenol