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 .
Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study--phases 3, 4, and 5: apical surgery.
INTRODUCTION The long-term outcome of apical surgery performed on root-filled teeth presenting with post-treatment apical periodontitis has been the subject of debate ; therefore , current evidence is required to support the prognosis of this important procedure . The objectives of this study were ( 1 ) to assess the long-term outcome of apical surgery and ( 2 ) to identify significant outcome predictors in Phases 3 - 5 of the Toronto Study , pooled with the previously reported Phases 1 and 2 . METHODS The 4- to 10-year outcome of apical surgery was prospect ively assessed by a blinded , independent , calibrated examiner and dichotomized as " healed " ( periapical index score < or=2 or scar ; no signs or symptoms ) or " diseased . " Teeth presenting without signs or symptoms were classified as " functional . " Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate outcome predictors , pooling Phases 3 - 5 ( n = 40 ) with Phases 1 and 2 ( n = 94 ) for improved power . RESULTS Of 261 treated teeth in the pooled sample , 96 were lost to follow-up , and 31 were extracted . Of the remaining 134 teeth ( 85 % recall , excluding 66 teeth that could not be recalled ) examined for outcome , 99 teeth ( 74 % ) were healed , and 126 teeth ( 94 % ) were functional . Three significant ( P < .05 ) outcome predictors were identified : age ( odds ratio [ OR ] , 2.5 ; confidence interval [ CI ] , 1.01 - 6.00 ; healed : > 45 years , 84 % , < or=45 years , 68 % ) , preoperative root-filling length ( OR , 3.4 ; CI , 1.34 - 8.76 ; healed : inadequate , 84 % ; adequate , 68 % ) , and size of the surgical crypt ( OR , 1.9 ; CI , 1.19 - 3.16 ; healed : < or=10 mm , 80 % ; > 10 mm , 53 % ) . CONCLUSIONS In this 4- to 10-year cohort study , the outcome was better in subjects > 45 years old , teeth with inadequate root-filling length , and crypt size of < or=10 mm
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 .