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 .
A prospective randomized controlled study of mineral trioxide aggregate and super ethoxy-benzoic acid as root-end filling materials in endodontic microsurgery.
INTRODUCTION The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of endodontic microsurgery when super ethoxy-benzoic acid ( Super EBA ; Harry J. Bosworth , Skokie , IL ) and mineral trioxide aggregate ( MTA ) were used as root-end filling material s in a prospect i ve r and omized controlled study . METHODS Of the 388 teeth eligible for endodontic microsurgery , 128 teeth were excluded from the study , and 260 teeth were r and omly assigned to either the Super EBA group or the MTA group with equal numbers using the " minimization method . " Endodontic microsurgical procedures were performed according to the Yonsei protocol reported in a previous study and were carried out by a single operator . The patients were followed up at 3 , 6 , and 12 months . The primary outcome measure was the change in the apical bone density at 12 months , and the secondary outcome measures were the presence of clinical symptoms or abnormal findings at 12 months . RESULTS A total of 192 teeth were examined at the 12-month follow-up ; 102 teeth were in the Super EBA group , and 90 were in the MTA group . The overall success rate was 94.3 % , with a success rate of 95.6 % ( 86/90 teeth ) for MTA and 93.1 % ( 95/102 teeth ) for Super EBA . The statistical analysis of the success rate results did not show any significant difference between the groups ( P = .472 ) . CONCLUSIONS In this prospect i ve r and omized controlled study , there was no significant difference in the clinical outcomes of endodontic microsurgery when Super EBA and MTA were used as root-end filling material
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 .