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 .
Clinical outcome in periradicular surgery: effect of patient- and tooth-related factors--a multicenter study.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of patient- and tooth-related factors on the outcome of apical surgery in a multicenter study . METHOD AND MATERIAL S A total of 281 teeth in 255 patients undergoing periradicular surgery  were investigated clinical ly and radiographically 6 to 12 months postoperatively . RESULTS The overall success rate was 88.0 % . Sex was a significant ( P = .024 ) predictor , with a success rate of 89.8 % in females and 84.0 % in males . The success rate was significantly higher in patients 31 to 40 years of age . The treatment of premolars result ed in a significantly higher success rate ( 91.9 % ) than the treatment of anterior teeth ( 86.1 % , P = .042 ) and molars ( 86.4 % , P = .026 ) . The loss of the buccal bone plate and the extension of apical osteolysis to the furcation area in molars result ed in a considerably lower success rate . Lesion size , preoperative pain , tenderness to percussion , fistula , and resurgery were significant factors . CONCLUSION There are several factors influencing the success rate of apical surgery that must be taken into account when considering apical surgery as a treatment alternative
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 .