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 .
Outcomes of periradicular surgery of maxillary first molars using a vestibular approach: a prospective, clinical study with one year of follow-up.
PURPOSE The aim of the present prospect i ve , r and omized , controlled , clinical study was to compare the outcomes of periradicular surgery of the maxillary first molar tooth using the vestibular approach between 2 preoperative radiologic evaluation methods : cone beam computed tomography ( CBCT ) and conventional radiography . PATIENTS AND METHODS Periradicular surgery was applied to the maxillary first molar tooth in 40 patients . The patients were divided into 2 groups . The patients in group 1 underwent examination and preoperative planning with CBCT , and the patients in group 2 underwent examination and preoperative planning with conventional radiography . The outcomes of the treatment were evaluated radiographically and clinical ly , and the data were analyzed statistically . RESULTS The mean operative time was significantly shorter in group 1 than in group 2 . According to the radiographic and clinical healing criteria used in the present study , the healing of patients in group 1 was rated as a success in 35 % , an improvement in 40 % , and a failure in 25 % . In the group 2 patients , healing was rated as a success in 42.1 % , an improvement in 31.6 % , and a failure in 26.3 % . Sinus membrane elevation was performed in 92.3 % of all patients . Sinus membrane perforation occurred in 20 % of the patients in group 1 and 36.8 % of the patients in group 2 . CONCLUSIONS Periradicular surgery of maxillary first molars using a vestibular approach is a viable treatment method with a low complication rate . Preoperative CBCT examination demonstrated positive contributions to the treatment outcomes
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 .