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 .
Microscope versus endoscope in root-end management: a randomized controlled study.
The purpose of this prospect i ve , r and omized , clinical study was to monitor the outcome of periradicular surgery , in which either a surgical microscope or an endoscope was used as a magnification device . A total of 113 teeth in 70 patients were included in the study , according to specific selection criteria . The choice of endoscope or surgical microscope was made using a r and omized table . One hundred cases were followed for at least 2 years . Of these , 59 root-end management procedures were performed using a microscope and 41 using an endoscope . At the 2-year follow-up they were classified into three groups ( success , uncertain healing and failure ) according to radiographic and clinical criteria . After a 2-year follow-up , 91 teeth ( 91 % ) healed successfully . In the group using an endoscope 90 % of successful healing was achieved , while 92 % of success was recorded for the group using a microscope . No statistically significant difference was found in the treatment results relating to the type of magnification device . The type of magnification device used did not seem to affect the outcome of endodontic surgery
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 .