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 .
The effectiveness of compomer as a root-end filling: a clinical investigation.
OBJECTIVE This study investigates the treatment outcome of a root-end filling technique that uses a light-cured compomer combined with a light-cured dental adhesive . STUDY DESIGN The study used 34 single-rooted teeth restored with post , core , and crowns . A shallow concave apical preparation was filled with a light-cured compomer with a light-cured dental adhesive . As a control , a chemically cured glass ionomer was used with a conventional root-end preparation . A follow-up clinical and radiographic evaluation of the treatment result was conducted after 1 year . RESULTS A significantly higher success rate ( P<.015 ) was observed in the treatment group that used a compomer ( 89 % complete healing ) compared to glass ionomer ( 44 % complete healing ) . CONCLUSIONS When used as a retro grade root filling in a shallow concave preparation , a light-cured compomer and a dental adhesive improves healing regardless of the quality of the remaining root filling
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 .