Introduction: The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of periapical surgery in a large number of molars in order to identify possible variables that might affect the outcome. Methods: The healing outcome of patients undergoing periapical surgery of molars from October 1999 to October 2019 was retrospectively evaluated. Outcome was dichotomized into "healed" and "nonhealed" using well-established clinical and radiographic healing criteria. The potential influence of patient-, tooth-, and treatment-related parameters on the healing outcome was analyzed. Results: A total of 424 molars in the same number of patients (45.5% male and 54.5% female) were evaluated. Three hundred seventytwo molars were classified as healed (87.7%). Three significant outcome predictors were identified: 1-year follow-up versus >1-5 years, >5-10 years, and >10 years (95.3% vs 82.2%, 76.3%, and 76.5% healed, respectively; P < .0001); root end filling material with bioceramic root repair material versus mineral trioxide aggregate (96.9% vs. 86.3% healed, respectively; P = .001); and preoperative evaluation based on cone-beam computed tomographic imaging versus 2-dimensional radiography (90.2% vs 81.4% healed, respectively; P = .02). Sex, age, tooth location, type of restoration, attachment level, presence of a post, quality of the root canal filling, technique of root end preparation, administration of antibiotics, and type of surgery had no significant impact on the healing outcome. Conclusions: The healed rate for the concave (Retroplast) and cavity (mineral trioxide aggregate, SuperEBA [Staident International, Staines, UK], and bioceramic root repair material) root end preparation technique over all follow-up periods was 84% and 88.5%, respectively. The follow-up period, root end filling material, and preoperative evaluation based on cone-beam computed tomographic imaging had a significant influence on the healing outcome. (J Endod 2021;47:1703-1714.)