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 .
Periapical microsurgery: the effect of root dentinal defects on short- and long-term outcome.
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this prospect i ve clinical study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of endodontic microsurgery on roots exhibiting the presence or absence of dentinal defects at 1-year and 3-year follow-up period . METHODS One hundred fifty-five teeth were treated with periapical microsurgery  using a modern microsurgical protocol in a private practice setting . The root apices were resected and inspected for dentinal defects with a surgical operating microscope and a 0.8-mm head diameter light-emitting diode microscope diagnostic probe light . After inspection , root-end preparations were performed using ultrasonic tips , and root-end fillings were placed . Follow-up visits occurred at 1 year and 3 years postoperatively . The primary outcome measure used was the change in the radiographic apical bone density , and the secondary outcome measure used was the absence of clinical symptoms . RESULTS Of the 155 treated teeth , a total of 134 teeth were assessed at the 1-year follow-up and 127 teeth at the 3-year evaluation . In the " intact " group , 94.8 % healed at 1 year , and 97.3 % healed at 3 years . In the " dentinal defect " group , 29.8 % healed at 1 year , and 31.5 % healed at 3 years . The baseline root condition of either " dentinal defect " or " intact " showed a statistical difference in the healing outcome at both 1 and 3 years . CONCLUSIONS This prospect i ve periapical microsurgery study showed a significant superior clinical outcome for intact roots when compared with roots with dentinal defects at both 1 year and at 3 years postoperatively
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 .