International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Clinical PaperOral SurgeryMicroscope versus endoscope in root-end management: a randomized controlled study
Section snippets
Materials and methods
All patients requiring endodontic surgical treatment were recruited during a period of 36 months (from December 2001 to December 2004) in a university clinic and in a private practice. A single surgical team, including two skilful surgeons with more than 10 years’ experience (ST, TT), performed all the apical surgery.
Results
In this study, 113 teeth in 70 patients were included and received surgical treatment as planned.
An endoscope was used as the magnification device for 34 patients (50 teeth, Group E). One tooth was extracted during the surgical procedure before root-end resection because of vertical fracture, so the tooth (and the patient) was excluded from the study. Two patients, accounting for four teeth, did not attend the 1-year follow-up visit and were excluded from the study. Another two patients,
Discussion
Following the introduction of microsurgical techniques in endodontic surgery, involving new methods for the preparation of root-end cavities, ways of enhancing visualization of the surgical field have been sought3. The use of high quality magnification devices in dentistry is becoming more common, with the aim of improving the quality of treatment3. In the present comparative study two different kinds of magnification devices were used to carry out root-end preparation: the microscope and the
References (25)
- et al.
An endoscopic technique for endodontic surgery
J Endod
(1999) - et al.
Modern endodontic surgery concept and practice: A review
J Endod
(2006) - et al.
The quality of ultrasonic root-end preparation: a quantitative study
J Endod
(1998) - et al.
Observer strategy and the radiographic classification of healing after endodontic surgery
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(1987) - et al.
Incomplete healing (scar tissue) after periapical surgery. Radiographic findings 8-12 years after treatment
J Endod
(1996) - et al.
Long-term follow-up of cases considered healed one year after apical microsurgery
J Endod
(2002) - et al.
Endodontic surgery using two different magnification devices. Preliminary results of a randomized controlled study
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(2006) - et al.
Success and failure in periradicular surgery. A longitudinal retrospective analysis
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(1999) - et al.
Comparison of quality of life after surgical endodontic treatment using two techniques: A prospective study
Oral Surg Oral Med Pral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2005) - et al.
Retrospective evaluation of surgical endodontics treatment: traditional versus modern technique
J Endod
(2006)
Magnification in endodontics: the use of the operating microscope
Pract Proced Aesthet Dent
Pathways of the pulp
Cited by (50)
Removal of Horizontally Impacted Mandibular Third Molars With Large Root Bifurcations Using a Modified Tooth Sectioning Method
2021, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryPredictors of clinical outcomes in endodontic microsurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2017, Giornale Italiano di EndodonziaEndodontics, Endodontic Retreatment, and Apical Surgery Versus Tooth Extraction and Implant Placement: A Systematic Review
2017, Journal of EndodonticsCitation Excerpt :Unfortunately, the full text of 12 articles could not be obtained. Finally, 45 articles were chosen to be included in this systematic review: 2 randomized clinical trials (25, 26), 22 prospective cohort studies (6, 27–47), 17 retrospective cohort studies (3-5, 48–61), 2 cross-sectional studies (1, 62), and 2 cost-effectiveness analysis studies (63, 64). Concretely, the clinical articles were grouped into distinct tables depending on the type of intervention performed.
Tooth Retention through Endodontic Microsurgery or Tooth Replacement Using Single Implants: A Systematic Review of Treatment Outcomes
2015, Journal of EndodonticsCitation Excerpt :Electronic searches identified 310 EMS articles from which 18 abstracts were selected. Hand searching of 17 systematic reviews and over 500 references added 12 additional abstracts to give a total of 30 abstracts; after full-text review, 6 studies were included (Table 3) (97–102). For both SIs and EMS, searches in the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE failed to identify any articles that were not initially identified when searching PubMed.