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 .
Endoscopic endodontic microsurgery: 2-year evaluation of healing and functionality.
This prospect i ve clinical study aim ed to evaluate the benefits of the endoscope as an aid to root-end management , and to assess the treatment outcome during 2 years following surgery . Forty-three endodontic surgical procedures in 30 patients were performed with the aid of an endoscope and followed for a period of 2 years . Radiographic criteria and clinical evaluation were used to assess the outcome . All cases were evaluated in terms of healing and functionality . 91.1 % and 90.7 % of the teeth evaluated after 1 and 2 years , respectively , were classified as successful . We found no statistically significant differences for both healing and functionality between the 1- and 2-year evaluations . No difference related to tooth type or tooth location was found at the 2-year follow-up . Fisher 's exact test was used to statistically assess the difference between successful and unsuccessful cases for each of the variables considered . The endoscope can be an aid for endodontic surgical procedures in terms of both periapical healing and functionality up to 2 years follow-up
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 .