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 .
A comparative prospective randomized clinical study of MTA and IRM as root-end filling materials in single-rooted teeth in endodontic surgery.
OBJECTIVE R and omized clinical prospect i ve study to evaluate the application of MTA and IRM as retro grade sealers in surgical endodontics . STUDY DESIGN One hundred single-rooted teeth were surgically treated . After r and omization , MTA or IRM was used as a retrosealer . Radiographs were taken 1 week , 3 months , and 1 year postoperatively . Assessment was performed by 2 independent assessors 1 year after surgery . Both treatment groups were homogeneous in their composition , and clinical features and radiographic findings were classified according to Rud 's classification . RESULTS Complete healing was observed in 64 % of the MTA-treated teeth vs 50 % of the IRM-treated teeth . Incomplete healing was seen in 28 % ( MTA ) vs 36 % ( IRM ) , and unsatisfactory in 6 % ( MTA ) vs 14 % ( IRM ) . Only 1 failure was seen ( MTA ) . No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 retrofilling material s. CONCLUSION As root-end filling material s in this clinical prospect i ve r and omized design on single rooted teeth , MTA and IRM had the same clinical effectiveness
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 .