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 .
Correlation of bone defect dimensions with healing outcome one year after apical surgery.
This clinical study prospect ively evaluated the healing outcome 1 year after apical surgery  in relation to bony crypt dimensions measured intraoperatively . The study cohort included 183 teeth in an equal number of patients . For statistical analysis , results were dichotomized ( healed versus non-healed cases ) . The overall success rate was 83 % ( healed cases ) . Healing outcome was not significantly related to the level and height of the facial bone plate . In contrast , a significant difference was found for the mean size of the bony crypt when healed cases ( 395 mm(3 ) ) were compared with non-healed cases ( 554 mm(3 ) ) . In addition , healed cases had a significantly shorter mean distance ( 4.30 mm ) from the facial bone surface to the root canal ( horizontal access ) compared with non-healed cases ( 5.13 mm ) . With logistic regression , however , the only parameter found to be significantly related to healing outcome was the length of the access window to the bony crypt
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 .