Outcome Assessment of Three Different Methods of Root-end Preparation and Filling Materials in Endodontic Surgery: A Comparative Clinical Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION

The technique of endodontic surgery had evolved tremendously in the recent years with introduction of new instruments and materials.

AIM

This study aims to compare the clinical outcome of endodontic microsurgery using three different techniques with three different root-end filling materials for 16 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 45 maxillary incisors indicated for root-end surgery were selected for the study. They were enrolled into three groups, i.e. Group A (traditional [TRS]/heat burnished gutta-percha), Group B (concave [CON]/Retroplast), and Group C (cavity/DiaRoot BioAggregate), of 15 teeth each. The clinical and radiographic outcome was recorded at 1, 6, 12, and 16 months using various criteria.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test using SPSS V. 21 software (IBM Corp., Somers, NY, USA).

RESULTS

All patients had uneventful healing at the final follow-up. Radiological intratime analysis concluded a highly high significant ( < 0.0001) decrease in the size of radiolucency between the three groups at the third recall visit. Intertime analysis recorded no significant decrease in radiolucency between Groups A and B, a significant decrease in B and C, and a highly significant decrease between Groups A and C at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the clinical outcome after endodontic surgery when comparing TRS/heat burnished gutta-percha, CON/Retroplast, and cavity/DiaRoot BioAggregate techniques at 16 months. However, cavity/DiaRoot BioAggregate resulted in significantly rapid and predictable healing at 12 months.