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 .
Prognostic factors of clinical outcomes in endodontic microsurgery: a prospective study.
INTRODUCTION This prospect i ve study examined the potential prognostic factors of endodontic microsurgery and compared the predictors of an isolated endodontic lesion with those of both an isolated endodontic lesion and an endodontic-periodontal lesion . METHODS Data were collected from the Microscope Center of the Department of Conservative Dentistry at the Dental College of Yonsei University , Seoul , Korea , between March 2001 and March 2011 . A total number of 584 teeth were included , and all clinical procedures were performed by a single operator ( E.K. ) . The evaluation was performed at least 1 year after surgery . For statistical analysis of the predisposing factors , the chi-square test and logistic regression were performed . RESULTS Of the 584 cases treated , 431 cases came for recall after a period of at least 12 months . Sex ( female ) , tooth position ( anterior ) , arch type ( maxilla ) , and lesion type ( isolated endodontic lesion ) were found to have a positive effect on surgical outcome . With regards to isolated endodontic lesions , the tooth position ( anterior ) , arch type ( maxilla ) , and type of restoration ( single/splinted crown , short bridge , and removable partial denture abutment ) were found to be pure positive predictors . CONCLUSIONS In endodontic microsurgery , it is likely that preoperative factors , particularly the tooth position and arch type , have a greater influence on the healing outcome than intra- and post-operative factors
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 .