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 .
Randomized clinical trial of root-end resection followed by root-end filling with mineral trioxide aggregate or smoothing of the orthograde gutta-percha root filling--1-year follow-up.
AIM To compare healing after root-end resection with a root-end filling of mineral trioxide aggregate ( MTA ) or smoothing of the ortho grade gutta-percha ( GP ) root filling . METHODOLOGY Forty-four patients ( consisting of 52 teeth with periapical infection ) , average age of 54.6 years ( range 30 - 77 ) participated in a r and omized clinical trial ( RCT ) comparing the MTA and GP treatment methods . Radiographs produced 1-week and 12 months post-operatively were compared after blinding for treatment method , and healing was assessed as complete , incomplete , uncertain , or unsatisfactory . RESULTS Six teeth were not available for the 12-month follow-up : three teeth ( GP ) had been re-operated because of pain and two teeth ( one GP , one MTA ) had been extracted because of root fracture ( these five teeth were classified as failures ) . One patient ( GP ) was not available for recall . In the GP group , seven teeth ( 28 % ) showed complete healing , six teeth ( 24 % ) incomplete healing , six teeth ( 24 % ) uncertain healing and two teeth ( 8 % ) unsatisfactory healing after 1 year . In the MTA group , 22 teeth ( 85 % ) showed complete healing , three teeth ( 12 % ) incomplete healing , and none were scored as uncertain or unsatisfactory healing after 1 year . The difference in healing between the GP and the MTA groups was significant ( P < 0.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS The results from this RCT emphasize the importance of placing a root-end filling after root-end resection . Teeth treated with MTA had significantly better healing ( 96 % ) than teeth treated by smoothing of the ortho grade GP root filling only ( 52 % )
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 .