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

Abstract

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 post hoc 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 (P < 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.

Keywords

• bioaggregate
• endodontic microsurgery
• endodontic surgery
• periapical surgery
• retroplast
• root-end filling materials