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 and radiographic assessment of various predictors for healing outcome 1 year after periapical surgery.
This clinical study prospect ively evaluated the influence of various predictors on healing outcome 1 year after periapical surgery .  The study cohort included 194 teeth in an equal number of patients . Three teeth were lost for the follow-up ( 1.5 % drop-out rate ) .  Clinical and radiographic measures were used to determine the healing outcome . For statistical analysis , results were dichotomized ( healed versus nonhealed ) . The overall success rate was 83.8 % ( healed cases ) . The only individual predictors to prove significant for the outcome were pain at initial examination ( p=0.030 ) and other clinical signs or symptoms at initial examination ( p=0.042 ) , meaning that such teeth had lower healing rates 1 year after periapical surgery compared with teeth without such signs or symptoms . Logistic regression revealed that pain at initial examination ( odds ratio=2.59 , confidence interval=1.2 - 5.6 , p=0.04 ) was the only predictor reaching significance . Several predictors almost reached statistical significance : lesion size ( p=0.06 ) , retrofilling material ( p=0.06 ) , and postoperative healing course ( p=0.06 )
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 .