ReviewInternational endodontic journal2026
Optimising Outcomes in Endodontic Microsurgery: Evidence, Uncertainties and Future Directions.
Review in International endodontic journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Endodontic Microsurgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Mesiobuccal root morphology influences biomechanical stability after endodontic microsurgery in maxillary first molars: a finite element analysis study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The potential associations of periapical lesions on endodontic microsurgery with guided bone regeneration: a retrospective analysis of 23 cases.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endodontic microsurgery (EMS) is a reliable treatment modality for managing persistent or recurrent periapical pathologies, particularly when conventional nonsurgical retreatment is infeasible or has failed. Various factors influence EMS outcomes, among which the lesion type is a key determinant. Isolated endodontic lesions generally exhibit favourable outcomes, whereas combined endodontic-periodontal lesions and through-and-through defects are clinically challenging and associated with less predictable outcomes. The adjunctive use of regenerative procedures, such as bone grafts, barrier membranes and biologically active agents, aims to enhance periapical healing; however, current evidence remains inconclusive, and further studies with clear lesion-type classification are required to determine their true benefits. Guided surgical approaches, including static, dynamic and robot-assisted systems, have been introduced in EMS to enhance surgical precision and predictability. These technologies appear particularly beneficial in small isolated lesions or when critical anatomical structures must be protected, but further studies are required to validate their clinical effectiveness. This review encourages clinicians to approach EMS with a clear understanding of the effect of lesion type on the prognosis, and to critically assess the usefulness of adjunctive regenerative procedures and advanced technologies based on lesion-specific considerations. Although predictable outcomes are mostly dependent on sound diagnosis, thoughtful case selection, and meticulous surgical techniques, accumulating evidence and technical progress suggest that the indications for EMS may be reasonably expanded in well-selected cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.