Microscope versus endoscope in root-end management: a randomized controlled study

S. Taschieri, M. Del Fabbro, T. Testori, R. Weinstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1022-1026
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2008


  • endoscope
  • microscope
  • periradicular surgery
  • root-end cavity preparation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Microscope versus endoscope in root-end management: a randomized controlled study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this