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 .
Endodontic surgery using 2 different magnification devices: preliminary results of a randomized controlled study.
PURPOSE The introduction of microsurgical instruments and magnification devices has brought advantages in root-end management and the application of root-end filling material s. The main purpose of this prospect i ve clinical study was to monitor the outcome of ultrasonic root-end preparation using magnification loupes or an endoscope . Tooth location and the presence of post restoration were also examined as potentially affecting the outcome . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Teeth treated surgically showed a periradicular lesion of strictly endodontic origin . A total of 59 patients were included in the study , according to specific selection criteria . Following the reflection of a full mucoperiosteal tissue flap , residual soft tissues were curetted , root ends were resected , and root-end cavities were prepared ultrasonically with a zirconium nitrate tip , and zinc oxide EBA-reinforced cement root-end fillings were placed . Thirty-two root-end management procedures were performed using magnification loupes and 39 using an endoscope . All cases followed for a period of 1 year were classified into 3 groups ( success , uncertain healing , and failure ) according to radiographic and clinical criteria . RESULTS Of the 71 teeth evaluated at 1-year follow-up , 67 teeth ( 92.95 % ) successfully healed , 3 teeth had uncertain healing , and 2 failed . In the group using endoscopy , 94.9 % of successful healing was achieved , while for the other group , 90.6 % was recorded . We found no statistically significant differences in treatment results related to the arch ( P = .20 ) , post restoration ( P = .21 ) , or type of magnification device ( P = .08 ) . CONCLUSIONS In the present study , adherence to a strict endodontic surgical protocol and the use of modern surgical endodontic procedures , together with visual magnifications , result ed in an overall high success rate
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 .