{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03220338983050847, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01440677966101695, 'mean_word_length': 4.99492385786802, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative evaluation of Ca(OH)2 plus points and Ca(OH)2 paste in apexification.

AIM
 The aim of this study was to compare calcium hydroxide plus points (CHPPs) with the conventional calcium hydroxide paste (CHP) clinically and radiographically as materials used in apexification treatment.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
 Sixteen children, each with at least one necrotic permanent central incisor requiring apexification treatment, were selected for this study. Twenty-two selected teeth were divided into two test groups (10 CHP and 12 CHPP). The children were recalled for clinical evaluations every 3 weeks, and their radiographical evaluations were carried out every 3 months. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate the differences between the groups.


RESULTS
 The follow-up evaluations revealed that the success rate was 100% for CHP and 92% for CHPP. No statistically significant difference between the groups was observed (P > 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
 CHPP-treated central incisors requiring apexification demonstrated good success. CHPP can be used for cases in which traditional Ca(OH)(2) apexification is indicated as it has a similar outcome with CHP.