I'm in the process of having a root canal redone in the endo post grad clinic (chronic draining puss pocket which I have kept under control during my personal dental hygiene each day). The post grad thought at first that I might have a fractured root and would need a root amputation after a refill of the canals. Now he suspects a possible perforation happened on the first endo job but will not know for sure until the suspect root is fully exposed. Anyway the next step is to refill the canals using a cement type substance on the suspect canal. The exploration and amputation will follow a week later. When I became aware of the possible perforation I asked him if it would be possilbe to cut the root just above the perforation and thus save as much of the root as possible. He said yes and that a perforation can even be patched under the right conditions. Well he was originally going to refill the suspect canal with MTA but the Atttending gave him some static about the hygienic compatability of MTA vs another substance that the Attending seemed to prefer. Listening to the conversation between the PGY 2 and the Attending I sensed that the PGY 2 preferred to use the MTA because of the greater ability to be able to completely fill and compact the suspect canal with the MTA. Now that makes sense to me especially if a perforation is the problem and it can be patched or results in the minimum amount of root needing to be amputated. I'm now concerned that the Attending may overrule the PGY 2 when it would not be in my best interest. I'm now thinking we should hold up a minute and open up the root for exploration before any decision is made about the treatment of that root. What do you guys think? Should I speak up before the next appointment?