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, comparative clinical study of resin composite and glass ionomer cement for retrograde root filling
Abstract Objective . To compare the clinical and radiographic treatment outcome of retro grade root filling with either dentin-bonded resin composite ( Retroplast , RP ) or glass ionomer cement ( Chelon-Silver , CS ) . Study design . A prospect i ve , r and omized clinical study of 134 consecutive patients with indication of retro grade root filling of an incisor , canine , premolar , or first molar . Either RP or CS was chosen at r and om as retro grade filling material . Either material was applied onto the entire resection surface after prepared slightly concave . This preparation technique makes a sealing of the entire resection surface possible and prevents marginal contraction gaps during polymerization . A total of 122 patients were available for 1-year follow-up . Results . After 1 year the proportion of successful cases was significantly higher in the RP group ( 73 % ) than in the CS group ( 31 % ) ( p<0.001 ) . Doubtful healing with a need for a longer observation period was seen in 17 % of the RP cases and 19 % of the CS cases . The proportion of failures in the RP group ( 10 % ) was significantly lower than that in the CS group ( 50 % ) ( p<0.001 ) . Most of the unsuccessful  CS cases failed due to loosening of the retro grade filling . Conclusions . Dentin-bonded RP applied onto the entire , slightly concave resection surface is a predictable apical sealant characterized by a high success rate . In contrast , retro grade root filling with CS results in an unacceptably high failure rate due to insufficient bonding strength to the concave resection surface
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 .