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 .
Super-EBA and IRM as root-end fillings in periapical surgery with ultrasonic preparation: a prospective randomized clinical study of 206 consecutive teeth.
OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the treatment outcome after periapical surgery with the use of 2 different retro grade root-filling material s and the influence of 3 pre- and perioperative variables on the periapical healing . STUDY DESIGN Two hundred six teeth in 164 patients were r and omly allocated to receive either IRM or Super-EBA as a retro grade root-end seal . The teeth were review ed 12 months after surgery . The influence of lesion size , lesion type , and ortho grade root filling quality on healing was analyzed . RESULTS One hundred ninety-four teeth in 153 patients were review ed . Radiologic evaluation and clinical examination revealed 91 % success rate for the IRM group and 82 % for the Super-EBA group . There was no statistical significance in the healing outcome between the 2 groups ( Fisher exact test ) . The analyzed pre- and perioperative variables had no significant influence on the treatment outcome ( Z test ) . CONCLUSIONS Both retro grade material s tested in this study can serve as a root-end seal in periapical infected teeth , according to the results of the healing outcome after 12 months ' 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 .