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 .
[An endodontic ultrasonic system for apical endodontic surgery].
Apical endodontic surgery is applied frequently following a failed conventional endodontic treatment . The apical preparation can be carried out conventionally using a round bur or using an endodontic ultrasonic system . The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of the 2 treatment options by a r and omized prospect i ve clinical study . Patients ( n=399 ) were at r and om allocated to treatment using a conventional round bur or using an ultrasonic system ( P-max Newtron ) according to a for the rest similar treatment protocol . One year post treatment , the treatment outcomes were determined by 2 oral and maxillofacial surgeons , blinded for the treatment option . Adequate follow-up data were obtained from 290 patients . The overall success rate was 71 % in the patients treated conventionally and 81 % in the patients treated using the ultrasonic system . In molar teeth , the difference in success rate was statistically significant
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 .