Clinical Paper
Oral Surgery
Microscope versus endoscope in root-end management: a randomized controlled study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.07.001Get rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, 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 randomized 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.

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)

  • A. Castellucci

    Magnification in endodontics: the use of the operating microscope

    Pract Proced Aesthet Dent

    (2003)
  • S. Cohen et al.

    Pathways of the pulp

    (2002)
  • Cited by (50)

    • Endodontics, Endodontic Retreatment, and Apical Surgery Versus Tooth Extraction and Implant Placement: A Systematic Review

      2017, Journal of Endodontics
      Citation 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 Endodontics
      Citation 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.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text