Conclusions : The probability for success for EMS proved to be significantly greater than the probability for success for RES , providing best available evidence on the influence of cavity preparation with ultrasonic tips and /or SuperEBA ( Keystone Industries , Gibbstown , NJ ) , IRM ( Dentsply Sirona , York , PA ) , MTA , or silicate cements as root‐end filling material instead of a shallow cavity preparation and placement of a resin‐based material .
HIGHLIGHTSEndodontic microsurgery ( EMS ) with the use of high‐magnification ultrasonic root‐end preparation and root‐end filling with SuperEBA , IRM , MTA , or other calcium silicate cements has a high probability of success .
Resin‐based endodontic surgery with the use of high‐magnification preparation of a shallow concave root‐end cavity with bonded resin‐based root‐end filling material performed less favorably than EMS
Introduction : The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of root‐end preparation and filling material on endodontic surgery outcome .
Clinical results with two different methods of root-end preparation and filling in apical surgery: mineral trioxide aggregate and adhesive resin composite.
INTRODUCTION The aim of apical surgery is to hermetically seal the root canal system after root-end resection , thereby enabling periradicular healing . The objective of this nonr and omized prospect i ve clinical study was to report results of 2 different root-end preparation and filling methods , ie , mineral trioxide aggregate ( MTA ) and an adhesive resin composite ( Retroplast ) . METHODS The study included 353 consecutive cases with endodontic lesions limited to the periapical area . Root-end cavities were prepared with sonic microtips and filled with MTA ( n = 178 ) , or alternatively , a shallow concavity was prepared in the cut root face , with subsequent placement of an adhesive resin composite ( Retroplast ) ( n = 175 ) . Patients were recalled after 1 year . Cases were defined as healed when no clinical signs or symptoms were present and radiographs demonstrated complete or incomplete ( scar tissue ) healing of previous radiolucencies . RESULTS The overall rate of healed cases was 85.5 % . MTA-treated teeth demonstrated a significantly ( P = .003 ) higher rate of healed cases ( 91.3 % ) compared with Retroplast-treated teeth ( 79.5 % ) . Within the MTA group , 89.5%-100 % of cases were classified as healed , depending on the type of treated tooth . In contrast , more variable rates ranging from 66.7%-100 % were found in the Retroplast group . In particular , m and ibular premolars and molars demonstrated considerably lower rates of healed cases when treated with Retroplast . CONCLUSIONS MTA can be recommended for root-end filling in apical surgery , irrespective of the type of treated tooth . Retroplast should be used with caution for root-end sealing in apical surgery of m and ibular premolars and molars
Conclusions : The probability for success for EMS proved to be significantly greater than the probability for success for RES , providing best available evidence on the influence of cavity preparation with ultrasonic tips and /or SuperEBA ( Keystone Industries , Gibbstown , NJ ) , IRM ( Dentsply Sirona , York , PA ) , MTA , or silicate cements as root‐end filling material instead of a shallow cavity preparation and placement of a resin‐based material .
HIGHLIGHTSEndodontic microsurgery ( EMS ) with the use of high‐magnification ultrasonic root‐end preparation and root‐end filling with SuperEBA , IRM , MTA , or other calcium silicate cements has a high probability of success .
Resin‐based endodontic surgery with the use of high‐magnification preparation of a shallow concave root‐end cavity with bonded resin‐based root‐end filling material performed less favorably than EMS
Introduction : The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of root‐end preparation and filling material on endodontic surgery outcome .