DOI: 10.3390/app16199647 ISSN: 2076-3417

Retrograde Filling Materials in Endodontic Surgery: What Is the Gold Standard? A Systematic Review

Francesco D’Ambrosio, Mario Caggiano, Antonio Montano, Alfonso Acerra, Michela Scorziello, Francesco Giordano

There is no clear consensus on the optimal retrograde filling material for endodontic surgery, with uncertainty regarding long-term comparative performance among contemporary options. This systematic review aimed to determine which retrograde filling material provides the best long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in endodontic microsurgery. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and BioMed Central was conducted up to 30 January 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum 12-month follow-up comparing retrograde materials in endodontic surgery were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2 tool) were performed by different reviewers. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the data but only a narrative synthesis. Eleven RCTs (2002–2024), reporting on approximately 1600 teeth, were included. The overall risk of bias was moderate. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) demonstrated high long-term success (typically >90%). However, in a head-to-head comparison, MTA was not statistically superior to alternatives like super-ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) or zinc oxide and eugenol-based cement reinforced with resin (IRM). A significant difference favoring MTA was consistently observed only against traditional gutta-percha techniques. No study evaluated the newest premixed bioceramic sealers beyond 12 months, while they show the best properties. Within the limitations of the current evidence, MTA, Super-EBA, and IRM are all highly effective for retrograde obturation in endodontic microsurgery, with no single material demonstrating clear superiority in long-term success. This equivalence supports clinical decision-making based on handling characteristics, cost, and surgeon preference. A critical evidence gap exists regarding the long-term (>1 year) efficacy of newer bioceramic sealers.