nach oben

Clinical Oral Investigations

Erschienen in:

Open Access 02.02.2019 | Original Article

Impact of type of tooth on outcome of non-surgical root canal treatment

verfasst von: Erika Laukkanen, Miira M. Vehkalahti, Anja K. Kotiranta

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 11/2019

Abstract

Objectives

We assessed the impact of type of tooth on the outcome of root canal treatment (RCT) according to factors potentially weakening the prognosis such as preoperative apical periodontitis (AP) and treatment modality (primary or secondary RCT).

Materials and methods

We scrutinized patient documents including pre- and postoperative radiographs of 640 permanent teeth receiving non-surgical RCT at Helsinki University Clinic in 2008–2011. Of teeth, 44% were molars, 32% premolars, and 24% anterior teeth. Patients’ mean age was 51.5 years; 51% were male. AP was present in 60.5% of teeth preoperatively. We used the periapical index (PAI) to assess the radiographs and defined radiographically “healthy” and “healing” cases as successful. Statistical evaluation included chi-squared tests, Fisher’s exact tests, t tests, and logistic regression modeling.

Results

The overall success rate (SR) was 84.1%; 88.3% for primary and 75.5% for secondary RCT (p < 0.001). The SRs for anterior teeth, premolars and molars were 85.6%, 88.8%, and 79.7%, respectively. Teeth with and without AP had SRs of 77.3% and 94.5%, respectively (p < 0.001). The RCTs were more likely to succeed in anterior teeth and premolars than in molars (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1–2.7) and in females than in males (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2–3.1).

Conclusions

Apart from existing AP and retreatment scenario, also, the type of tooth and gender had a significant influence on the outcome of RCT in this study.

Clinical relevance

The prognosis of RCT varies by type of tooth; special attention should be given to RCT of molar teeth.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Previous reports on outcome of root canal treatment (RCT) have introduced apical periodontitis (AP) as a prominent factor weakening the prognosis of RCT [1‐5]. The prognosis may also depend on the type of tooth, although earlier evidence is contradictory [6‐10], and the results by type of tooth are rarely stratified by periapical status.

Type of tooth is important in clinical work when assessing treatment options and informing patients. However, it has seldom been included in multifactorial models examining factors possibly affecting the prognosis of RCT. Periapical healing seems to follow RCT more frequently in premolars and anterior teeth than in molars [6‐8] and in single-rooted than in multirooted teeth [11, 12]. A systematic review of primary RCTs concluded, however, that there was no difference in outcome by type of tooth, but discussed that the evidence is weakened by the fact that the studies had not stratified their results by periapical status [13].

Previous studies have shown consistently that AP preceding RCT affects the outcome negatively; success rates (SRs) vary between 92 and 96% for teeth without AP and between 74 and 86% for teeth with AP in primary (first-time) RCTs [2, 12, 14]. Secondary (retreatment) RCTs are mostly indicated by the presence of AP, resulting in SRs between 62 and 83% [7, 12, 14].

This retrospective study investigated the impact of type of tooth on the outcome of RCT taking into account the presence of preoperative AP and treatment modality (primary or secondary RCT).

Material and methods

Ethical consideration

This study was approved by the Department of Social Services and Health Care of the City of Helsinki (HEL 2012-012378). Data were collected from electronic patient records and radiographs and stored in a database using running numbers as patient identification.

Setting and cases

All RCTs, with no restriction by type of tooth, were performed by fourth- and fifth-year dental students under tight individual supervision of qualified endodontists. Dental students at the University of Helsinki performed their clinical training at Helsinki University Clinic as part of the public oral health service of the City of Helsinki. Since 2001, these services have been open to all citizens. The patients receiving RCT were either admitted for comprehensive dental care by making an appointment themselves or upon referral for RCT by dentists working in other units of the public services. RCT followed a strict protocol emphasizing aseptic control.

Patients who underwent RCT at Helsinki University Clinic between 2008 and 2011 formed the target population. The inclusion criteria were as follows: a follow-up radiograph taken a minimum of 6 months after root canal filling, diagnosable pre- and postoperative radiographs available, adequate patient records of the RCT available, no fractured instrument existing in the canals preoperatively, and no endodontic surgery preplanned for the case.

Data recordings

Data collected from patient documents included the type of tooth as anterior (incisors and canines), premolars, and molars, separately for maxillary and mandibular teeth. We recorded preoperative periapical status as apical periodontitis (AP) or no apical periodontitis (NAP) and treatment modality as primary (first-time) or secondary (retreatment) RCT. Patients’ details included gender and age in years.

Clinical protocol

The general protocol for endodontic treatment at Helsinki University Clinic at the time of the investigation is detailed below.

Before RCT, a preoperative radiograph is taken and the tooth is assessed in terms of restorability, periodontal status, and relevance in occlusion. The tooth is anesthetized (when needed), and caries and defective restorations are removed. An access cavity is made, root canals localized, rubber dam placed, and working field disinfected with 0.5% chlorhexidine + 96% ethanol solution (Klorhexol^®; Takeda OY, Helsinki, Finland). Working length is determined using an electronic apex locator and confirmed with a radiograph when needed. Chemo-mechanical debridement is carried out with nickel-titanium (NiTi) hand files (K-files) and with rotary NiTi instruments (Profile^®; Dentsply Sirona, Inc., York, PA, USA) with a minimum apical preparation size #35, taper 4%. For retreatment cases, the gutta-percha is removed using rotary instruments (R-endo^®; Micro-Mega^® SA, Besancon Cedex, France, or Protaper^® Universal D1-3; Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Johnson City, TN, USA) and chloroform, if needed. Copious amounts of 0.5–1.0% sodium hypochlorite are used for irrigation. At the end of the preparation, the smear layer is removed with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Klorhexol^® is used for final irrigation. Most RCTs (94%), including treatments of vital teeth, are carried out on multiple visits for scheduling reasons. Between visits, the root canals are dressed with calcium hydroxide. A master cone radiograph is taken before the root canal filling. The root canals are obturated using the cold lateral condensation technique with gutta-percha and sealer (AH Plus^®; Dentsply Sirona, Inc., York, PA, USA), and a postoperative radiograph is taken. The tooth is either restored in the same visit or temporized with two layers of temporary filling material (Cavit^™-G; 3M^™, St. Paul, MN, USA; and IRM^®; Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA; or Cavit^™-G and resin-modified glass ionomer) until final restoration.

Assessment of radiographs

A majority of images were intraoral periapical radiographs. In some cases, if a panoramic radiograph was available and diagnosable, it was used in addition or solely (9% of cases) for assessment. Periapical radiographs were taken using a beam-guiding device and the paralleling technique. All radiographs were digital. The radiographs were assessed separately from clinical information, in a room with dimmed lights and a high-quality computer screen (EIZO^® RadiForce MX220W; EIZO Corporation, Ishikawa, Japan). The periapical status was defined using the periapical index (PAI), a five-step scoring system with each step representing a shift from healthy periapical tissues to severe AP [15]. Preceding the assessment of PAI, the two examiners (a qualified endodontist, A.K., and an endodontics postgraduate student, E.L.) observed a set of 50 various radiographs. Written instructions and reference radiographs were available while examining the radiographs. For multirooted teeth, a PAI score was assigned to each root but recorded by tooth as the greatest score of the roots. If in doubt between scores, the greater PAI score was chosen. The two examiners evaluated the radiographs by discussing them to reach consensus. In addition, an oral and maxillofacial radiologist was consulted about radiographs of maxillary molars because of their complex anatomy and position.

Outcome was recorded as follows:

Healthy: healthy periapical tissues (PAI scores 1–2)

Healing: apical radiolucency considerably smaller in follow-up radiograph than in preoperative radiograph, but not completely disappeared (PAI scores 3–4) in 4 years

No healing:

Periapical radiolucency remained the same (PAI scores 3–5)

Teeth extracted for endodontic reasons (persisting apical infection, fistula) or for reasons not recorded in documents available after root filling

Teeth receiving periapical surgery

Deteriorated: periapical radiolucency enlarged or a new periapical radiolucency emerged (PAI scores 3–5)

The outcome was then dichotomized as successful (healthy and healing) or unsuccessful (no healing and deteriorated).

Statistical analysis

To evaluate differences between the groups, we used chi-squared tests and Fisher’s exact test for frequencies and t tests for mean values. We considered p values below 0.05 to be statistically significant. Further, we analyzed factors related to outcome. We applied logistic regression modeling and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The Hosmer and Lemeshow test was used to assess goodness of fit for the models.

Results

Characteristics of cases

The mean age of all patients was 51.5 years (standard deviation [SD] 15.0; range 10–83). For patients receiving primary RCT, the mean age was 50.0 years (SD 15.7; range 10–83), and for patients receiving secondary RCT, 54.6 years (SD 13.0; range 21–83). This age difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Of patients, 51% were male and 49% female.

A total of 640 permanent teeth with RCT were subject to analysis. Of these teeth, 44% were molars, 32% premolars, and 24% anterior teeth. The characteristics of root canal–treated teeth and patients are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of root canal–treated teeth (n = 640) enrolled in the study

Characteristic	All treated teeth		Primary RCT		Secondary RCT		p value
Characteristic	n	%	n	%	n	%	p value
Location and type of tooth
Maxilla (all teeth)	335	52	224	35	111	17	0.226
Anterior	105	16	77	12	28	4
Premolars	122	19	79	12	43	7
Molars	108	17	68	11	40	6
Mandible (all teeth)	305	48	204	32	101	16	0.144
Anterior	48	7	33	5	15	2
Premolars	84	14	49	8	35	6
Molars	173	27	122	19	51	8
Patients’ gender							0.219
Male	327	51	226	35	101	16
Female	313	49	202	32	111	17
Patients’ age (years)							0.010
< 35	92	15	75	12	17	3
35–44	92	14	65	10	27	4
45–54	172	27	113	18	59	9
55–64	151	24	95	15	56	9
≥ 65	133	20	80	12	53	8
Total	640	100	428	67	212	33

p values based on chi-squared test refer to differences between primary and secondary root canal treatments (RCTs). Cell percentages refer to proportions of all RCT teeth (n = 640)

AP occurred preoperatively in 60.5% of teeth and varied by type of tooth; mandibular anterior teeth had AP more often than other types of teeth (77.1% vs. 59.1%; p = 0.014). Male patients had AP more often than female patients (64.5% vs. 56.2%; p = 0.032).

Outcome

The overall success rate (SR) for all RCTs was 84.1%. The time range of outcome assessment was 6–71 months. Only the most recent follow-up of each tooth was included in the data. The SRs for different lengths of follow-up are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Success (%) of root canal treatments according to the length of follow-up

Follow-up (months)			Success, healthy/healed		Success, healing		Success, total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
6–11	121	19	72	59.5	24	19.8	96	79.3
12–24	298	47	209	70.1	41	13.8	250	83.9
> 24	221	34	170	76.9	22	10.0	192	86.9
Total	640	100	451	70.5	87	13.6	538	84.1

Success, healthy (teeth with no initial apical periodontitis)/healed (teeth with initial apical periodontitis) = radiographic findings scored as “healthy” at follow-up. Success, healing = radiographic findings scored as “healing” at follow-up

Premolars had a significantly greater SR than molars (88.8% vs. 79.7%; p = 0.007), but no such difference existed when premolars were compared with anterior teeth (88.8% vs. 85.6%; p = 0.363) or anterior teeth were compared with molars (85.6% vs. 79.7%; p = 0.128). No statistically significant difference was present in SRs of maxillary and mandibular teeth.

Teeth with primary RCT had a significantly greater SR than teeth with secondary RCT (88.3% vs. 75.5%; p < 0.001). The difference between primary and secondary treatments existed also according to the type of tooth (anterior, premolars, molars). The greatest SRs were with primary RCTs of maxillary and mandibular premolars, 93.7% and 93.9%, respectively. The smallest SRs were for secondary RCTs of mandibular anterior teeth and maxillary and mandibular molars, 66.7%, 70.0%, and 70.6%, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3

Success (%) of root canal treatment (RCT) according to treatment modality and type of tooth; p values refer to differences between primary and secondary RCT

Type of tooth by jaw	Primary RCT		Secondary RCT		Total		p^a value
Type of tooth by jaw	n	Success^b (%)	n	Success^b (%)	n	Success^b (%)	p^a value
Anterior
Maxilla	77	89.6	28	82.1	105	87.6	0.304
Mandible	33	87.9	15	66.7	48	81.3	0.081
Total	110	89.1	43	76.7	153	85.6	0.050
Premolars
Maxilla	79	93.7	43	81.4	122	89.3	0.061
Mandible	49	93.9	35	80.0	84	88.1	0.053
Total	128	93.8	78	80.8	206	88.8	0.004
Molars
Maxilla	68	85.3	40	70.0	108	79.6	0.057
Mandible	122	83.6	51	70.6	173	79.8	0.052
Total	190	84.2	91	70.3	281	79.7	0.007
Total	428	88.3	212	75.5	640	84.1	< 0.001

^aStatistical evaluation by means of chi-squared tests or Fisher’s exact test

^bSuccess = radiographic findings scored as “healthy” or “healing” at a minimum 6-month follow-up

The SR for teeth with AP preoperatively, including both primary and secondary RCTs, was significantly smaller than for teeth without AP (77.3% vs. 94.5%; p < 0.001). The difference varied by type of tooth; maxillary premolars (p = 0.001), mandibular premolars (p = 0.025), and mandibular molars (p < 0.001) showed the greatest differences (Table 4). The SR was smallest for mandibular molars with AP preoperatively and greatest for maxillary premolars without AP, 71.3% and 100%, respectively.

Table 4

Success (%) of root canal treatment according to preoperative periapical status and type of tooth

Type of tooth by jaw	NAP		AP		p^a value
Type of tooth by jaw	n	Success^b (%)	n	Success^b (%)	p^a value	RD
Anterior
Maxilla	45	93.3	60	83.3	0.124	10.0
Mandible	11	90.9	37	78.4	0.662	12.5
Total	56	92.9	97	81.4	0.053	11.5
Premolars
Maxilla	53	100.0	69	81.2	0.001	18.8
Mandible	36	97.2	48	81.3	0.025	15.9
Total	89	98.9	117	81.2	< 0.001	17.7
Molars
Maxilla	43	88.4	65	73.8	0.057	14.6
Mandible	65	93.8	108	71.3	< 0.001	22.5
Total	108	91.7	173	72.3	< 0.001	19.4
Total	253	94.5	387	77.3	< 0.001	17.2

p values refer to differences between NAP and AP teeth

NAP no apical periodontitis, AP apical periodontitis, RD rate difference in percentage points

^aStatistical evaluation by means of chi-squared tests or Fisher’s exact test

^bSuccess = radiographic findings scored as “healthy” or “healing” at a minimum 6-month follow-up

Table 5 presents logistic regression modeling for evaluating the outcome of RCT. Success was more likely for anterior teeth and premolars than for molars (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1–2.7), in the absence than in the presence of AP (OR 4.3; 95% CI 2.4–7.8), in primary than in secondary RCT (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.4–3.6), and in female patients than in male patients (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2–3.1). The age of the patient or the location of the tooth (maxilla vs. mandible) had no impact on the success of RCT.

Table 5

Success of root canal treatment (RCT) evaluated by means of logistic regression modeling

	Estimate	SE	OR	95% CI	p value
Type of tooth	0.541	0.239	1.7	1.1–2.7	0.023
Maxilla vs. mandible	0.143	0.234	1.2	0.7–1.8	0.542
NAP vs. AP	1.459	0.306	4.3	2.4–7.8	0.000
1° vs. 2° RCT	0.828	0.234	2.3	1.4–3.6	0.000
Age	0.004	0.008	1.0	1.0–1.0	0.644
Female vs. male	0.662	0.237	1.9	1.2–3.1	0.005
HL = 0.519

Success = radiographic findings scored as “healthy” or “healing” at a minimum 6-month follow-up. Type of tooth = anterior and premolars vs. molars

1° RCT primary root canal treatment, 2° RCT secondary root canal treatment, AP apical periodontitis, NAP no apical periodontitis, SE standard error, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, HL Hosmer and Lemeshow’s test for goodness of fit

Discussion

This study investigated the impact of type of tooth on the outcome of RCT. We found an overall SR of 84.1%, which is comparable to rates reported in recent international studies [3, 5, 7, 12, 16]. The success was poorer in molars, in teeth with preoperative AP, in secondary RCTs, and in male patients. The impact of preoperative AP on the outcome of RCT varied by type of tooth.

The diversity of our sample speaks for the generalizability of our findings. The patients of this study came from the general population, which bodes well for the absence of a selection bias. The wide age range of the patients (10–83 years) ensures representative data. Compared with previous studies, where 17–31% of RCT teeth were molars [6, 7, 17], in our material, molars were slightly over-represented (44%). The distribution of RCT teeth in our data is, however, similar to that in a large Finnish survey material consisting of 6101 panoramic radiographs [18]. The overall SR reported in different studies may depend on proportions of various types of teeth in the study sample [19] and the proportion of teeth with AP preoperatively [20]. Our study sample contained 60.5% teeth with AP, which is more than in many earlier studies (35–57%) [7, 8, 11, 12, 21]. A limitation of this study is that the material is collected from patient documents only. However, a similar approach has been used in many previous reports [9, 10, 22‐24].

The RCTs of this study were carried out by fourth- and fifth-year dental students, which could be considered a limitation of this study. However, under the strict supervision by endodontists, the RCTs performed by students succeed well. Similar clinical settings are common in many previous outcome studies, too [1, 8, 9, 14, 17].

We defined the success of RCT by periapical radiography, which is still considered the standard examination [25] and is in everyday use despite the increasing utilization of cone-beam computed tomography. For a minority (9%) of cases, we used panoramic radiography. Panoramic radiographs are usually considered less sensitive in periapical diagnosis, but contemporary panoramic radiographs with improved quality can be as accurate or even more accurate than periapical radiographs in molar regions [26]. We took teeth instead of roots as units of evaluation to avoid the possible skewness related to root-based analyses. All of the radiographs were assessed by two authors, who discussed the findings to reach consensus. Consequently, the inter-observer agreement was not measured, which is a limitation of this study.

We considered both “healthy” and “healing” teeth as successful as the follow-up period varied. In other words, we used “loose criteria,” as suggested by a systematic review [27]. Six months was the minimum follow-up. Almost 90% of periapical lesions that are going to heal eventually show signs of healing by 12 months, and reversal of the healing process is considered to be rare [28]. The healing can, however, be visible in radiographs rather soon after the RCT [21, 29]. For reasons related to the patient’s or student’s schedules, some follow-ups took place later than planned, which can be considered a limitation of our study. Similar variation in outcome assessment periods exists, however, in many previous studies [1, 5, 16, 17]. In case the lesion was not fully healed in 4 years, we considered the treatment failed according to the ESE guidelines [30], even though on rare occasions, healing can take considerably longer [23].

The overall SR (84.1%) found here is in line with many earlier studies [3, 5, 7, 12, 16] and with a meta-analysis [31] reporting a cumulative SR around 83%. We found RCT in molars less likely to succeed than in anterior teeth and premolars. The impact of type of tooth on outcome has been evaluated before with varying results [6‐10, 13], but rarely in a multifactorial model including other factors consistently shown to worsen the prognosis.

We found the SR for teeth with AP to be less than the rate for teeth without AP, supporting the conclusions from systematic reviews [13, 32]. The impact of AP on outcome varied by type of tooth. In the presence of AP, maxillary and mandibular molars had the smallest SRs, but the rate differences (RD) between teeth with and without AP were greatest for maxillary premolars and mandibular molars. In a French study with 91 patients, the risk of failure was seven times greater for posterior than for anterior teeth without AP [33]. In teeth with AP, the same study reported a fourfold higher risk of failure for multirooted teeth than for single-rooted teeth. A study investigating 100 teeth with AP found an overall SR of 95% [17], but only 17% of teeth in their study were molars and the results were not presented by type of tooth. Therefore, the results cannot be compared with ours. A recent Swedish study examined only maxillary molars (n = 73), 86% of which had AP preoperatively, and reported an SR of 81% [34], which is close to our result for maxillary molars (79.6%).

We found primary RCTs to be more likely to succeed than secondary RCTs, consistent with many previous studies [7, 12, 16, 17]. A prospective study, however, revealed no such difference [5]. In our study, there was a significant difference in SRs between primary and secondary RCTs also for the type of tooth (anterior, premolars, and molars). A study using multifactorial analysis separately for primary and secondary treatments found molars to be less likely to succeed than anterior teeth and premolars, but only for secondary treatments [4]. Another study investigating secondary treatments reported no difference in outcome by type of tooth [35]. In our study, the SR of secondary RCTs of mandibular anterior teeth was relatively small, but their amount was insufficient to show a statistical difference, and therefore, further investigation is needed to establish the prognosis of RCTs in mandibular anterior teeth.

The age of the patient had no impact on the success of RCT, which is in line with many earlier studies [11, 12, 35, 36], although some contradictory findings also exist [8, 16]. We found RCT to be twice as likely to succeed in women than in men, consistent with a study published in 1983 analyzing 20-year endodontic success [24] and another study published in 2001 [37]. This gender difference is difficult to interpret and is contrary to some previous studies [2, 3, 9, 10, 14, 22]. A recent epidemiological study in Finland found men to have AP more often than women, despite root-filled teeth being less frequent in men [38]. In our sample, AP occurred preoperatively more often in men.

All RCTs evaluated in this study were carried out under a strict protocol, which adds to the value of our findings. The results indicate that the success of RCT is to be expected, even in unexperienced hands, when guidelines are followed and good aseptic control is maintained. Epidemiological studies reflect the outcome of RCTs in general dental practice, and they show AP in 16–44% of root canal–treated teeth [38‐40]. Many general dentists find RCTs difficult and stressful to perform [41], and cite economic and time constraints as reasons for accepting substandard quality in root fillings [42]. Attention should be given to the circumstances in which RCTs are performed and especially to the apparently infrequent use of a rubber dam [43].

Conclusion

The overall outcome of RCT was comparable to that found in recent international studies. Apart from existing AP and retreatment, which consistently have been shown to worsen the prognosis, also, the type of tooth and gender of the patient had a significant influence on the outcome of RCT. The prognosis is not the same for every RCT; special attention should be given to RCTs of molars.

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital. The authors thank Walter Koskinen for the help in assessing the radiographs, Vesa Ylönen for assistance in data analysis, and Eero Kerosuo for valuable comments during the preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Dent – Das Online-Abo der Zahnmedizin

Online-Abonnement

Mit e.Dent erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen zahnmedizinischen Fortbildungen und unseren zahnmedizinischen und ausgesuchten medizinischen Zeitschriften.

Jetzt testen ²

Ørstavik D, Qvist V, Stoltze K (2004) A multivariate analysis of the outcome of endodontic treatment. Eur J Oral Sci 112(3):224–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00122.x CrossRefPubMed

Friedman S, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP (2003) Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto Study. Phase 1: initial treatment. J Endod 29(12):787–793. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200312000-00001 CrossRefPubMed

de Chevigny C, Dao TT, Basrani BR, Marquis V, Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, Friedman S (2008) Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study--phases 3 and 4: orthograde retreatment. J Endod 34(2):131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.11.003 CrossRefPubMed

Imura N, Pinheiro ET, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC, Souza-Filho FJ (2007) The outcome of endodontic treatment: a retrospective study of 2000 cases performed by a specialist. J Endod 33(11):1278–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.07.018 CrossRefPubMed

Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2011) A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. Int Endod J 44(7):583–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01872.x CrossRefPubMed

Cheung GS, Chan TK (2003) Long-term survival of primary root canal treatment carried out in a dental teaching hospital. Int Endod J 36(2):117–128CrossRef

Ricucci D, Russo J, Rutberg M, Burleson JA, Spangberg LS (2011) A prospective cohort study of endodontic treatments of 1,369 root canals: results after 5 years. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112(6):825–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.003 CrossRefPubMed

Lee AH, Cheung GS, Wong MC (2012) Long-term outcome of primary non-surgical root canal treatment. Clin Oral Investig 16(6):1607–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0664-2 CrossRefPubMed

Benenati FW, Khajotia SS (2002) A radiographic recall evaluation of 894 endodontic cases treated in a dental school setting. J Endod 28(5):391–395. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200205000-00011 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hoskinson SE, Ng YL, Hoskinson AE, Moles DR, Gulabivala K (2002) A retrospective comparison of outcome of root canal treatment using two different protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93(6):705–715CrossRef

11.

Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, Lawrence H, Friedman S (2004) Treatment outcome in endodontics—the Toronto Study. Phase II: initial treatment. J Endod 30(5):302–309. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200405000-00002 CrossRefPubMed

12.

de Chevigny C, Dao TT, Basrani BR, Marquis V, Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, Friedman S (2008) Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study--phase 4: initial treatment. J Endod 34(3):258–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.10.017 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K (2008) Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature -- part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J 41(1):6–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01323.x CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sjögren U, Hägglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K (1990) Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 16(10):498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ørstavik D, Kerekes K, Eriksen HM (1986) The periapical index: a scoring system for radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Endod Dent Traumatol 2(1):20–34CrossRef

16.

Azim AA, Griggs JA, Huang GT (2016) The Tennessee study: factors affecting treatment outcome and healing time following nonsurgical root canal treatment. Int Endod J 49(1):6–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12429 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Siqueira JF Jr, Rocas IN, Riche FN, Provenzano JC (2008) Clinical outcome of the endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis using an antimicrobial protocol. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106(5):757–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.06.007 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Huumonen S, Vehkalahti MM, Nordblad A (2012) Radiographic assessments on prevalence and technical quality of endodontically-treated teeth in the Finnish population, aged 30 years and older. Acta Odontol Scand 70(3):234–240. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2011.637510 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Friedman S (2002) Prognosis of initial endodontic therapy. Endod Top 2002(2):59–88CrossRef

20.

Ørstavik D, Pitt Ford T (2008) Essential endodontology: prevention and treatment of apical periodontitis, 2nd edn. Blackwell Munksgaard Ltd, Oxford, UK

21.

Huumonen S, Ørstavik D (2013) Radiographic follow-up of periapical status after endodontic treatment of teeth with and without apical periodontitis. Clin Oral Investig 17(9):2099–2104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0926-2 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Smith CS, Setchell DJ, Harty FJ (1993) Factors influencing the success of conventional root canal therapy--a five-year retrospective study. Int Endod J 26(6):321–333CrossRef

23.

Molven O, Halse A, Fristad I, MacDonald-Jankowski D (2002) Periapical changes following root-canal treatment observed 20-27 years postoperatively. Int Endod J 35(9):784–790CrossRef

24.

Swartz DB, Skidmore AE, Griffin JA, Jr. (1983) Twenty years of endodontic success and failure. J Endod 9(5):198–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(83)80092-2

25.

Patel S, Durack C, Abella F, Shemesh H, Roig M, Lemberg K (2015) Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics - a review. Int Endod J 48(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12270 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ridao-Sacie C, Segura-Egea JJ, Fernandez-Palacin A, Bullon-Fernandez P, Rios-Santos JV (2007) Radiological assessment of periapical status using the periapical index: comparison of periapical radiography and digital panoramic radiography. Int Endod J 40(6):433–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01233.x CrossRefPubMed

27.

Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K (2007) Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature - part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J 40(12):921–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01322.x CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ørstavik D (1996) Time-course and risk analyses of the development and healing of chronic apical periodontitis in man. Int Endod J 29(3):150–155CrossRef

29.

Kerosuo E, Orstavik D (1997) Application of computerised image analysis to monitoring endodontic therapy: reproducibility and comparison with visual assessment. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 26(2):79–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600207 CrossRefPubMed

30.

European Society of Endodontology (2006) Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 39(12):921–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01180.x CrossRef

31.

Kojima K, Inamoto K, Nagamatsu K, Hara A, Nakata K, Morita I, Nakagaki H, Nakamura H (2004) Success rate of endodontic treatment of teeth with vital and nonvital pulps. A meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 97(1):95–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079210403004803 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2008) Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. Int Endod J 41(12):1026–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01484.x CrossRefPubMed

33.

Castelot-Enkel B, Nguyen JM, Armengol V, Volteau C, Laboux O, Lombrail P, Weiss P (2013) A recall program for the outcome of conventional root canal treatment performed in a teaching hospital. Acta Odontol Scand 71(6):1399–1409. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.765591 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Almohareb R, Ahlquist M, Sandborgh Englund G (2016) The association between root canal filling and treatment outcome. Swedish Dental J (40):133–142

35.

Eyuboglu TF, Olcay K, Ozcan M (2017) A clinical study on single-visit root canal retreatments on consecutive 173 patients: frequency of periapical complications and clinical success rate. Clin Oral Investig 21(5):1761–1768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1957-2 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Shakiba B, Hamedy R, Pak JG, Barbizam JV, Ogawa R, White SN (2017) Influence of increased patient age on longitudinal outcomes of root canal treatment: a systematic review. Gerodontology 34(1):101–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ger.12231 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Chugal NM, Clive JM, Spangberg LS (2001) A prognostic model for assessment of the outcome of endodontic treatment: effect of biologic and diagnostic variables. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 91(3):342–352. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.113106 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Huumonen S, Suominen AL, Vehkalahti MM (2017) Prevalence of apical periodontitis in root filled teeth: findings from a nationwide survey in Finland. Int Endod J 50(3):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12625 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Tavares PB, Bonte E, Boukpessi T, Siqueira JF Jr, Lasfargues JJ (2009) Prevalence of apical periodontitis in root canal-treated teeth from an urban French population: influence of the quality of root canal fillings and coronal restorations. J Endod 35(6):810–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.048 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Kirkevang LL, Vaeth M, Wenzel A (2012) Ten-year follow-up observations of periapical and endodontic status in a Danish population. Int Endod J 45(9):829–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02040.x CrossRefPubMed

41.

Dahlström L, Lindwall O, Rystedt H, Reit C (2016) ‘Working in the dark’: Swedish general dental practitioners on the complexity of root canal treatment. Int Endod J 50(7):636–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12675 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Dahlström L, Lindwall O, Rystedt H, Reit C (2017) ‘It’s good enough’: Swedish general dental practitioners on reasons for accepting substandard root filling quality. Int Endod J 51(S3):e168–e177. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12743 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Ahmad IA (2009) Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: a review. Int Endod J 42(11):963–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01623.x CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Impact of type of tooth on outcome of non-surgical root canal treatment
verfasst von: Erika Laukkanen
Miira M. Vehkalahti
Anja K. Kotiranta
Publikationsdatum: 02.02.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 11/2019
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02832-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

19.04.2024 | Vorhofflimmern | Nachrichten

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Impact of type of tooth on outcome of non-surgical root canal treatment

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Publisher’s note

Introduction

Material and methods

Ethical consideration

Setting and cases

Data recordings

Clinical protocol

Assessment of radiographs

Statistical analysis

Results

Characteristics of cases

Outcome

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Publisher’s note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Dent – Das Online-Abo der Zahnmedizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

Newsletter

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Publisher’s note

Introduction

Material and methods

Ethical consideration

Setting and cases

Data recordings

Clinical protocol

Assessment of radiographs

Statistical analysis

Results

Characteristics of cases

Outcome

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Informed consent

Publisher’s note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Dent – Das Online-Abo der Zahnmedizin

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2019

Evaluation of the effect of teriparatide therapy on mandibular fracture healing in rats with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

Influence of ultrasonic agitation on bond strength, marginal adaptation, and tooth discoloration provided by three coronary barrier endodontic materials

A metagenomic study of patients with alveolar osteitis after tooth extraction. A preliminary case-control study

Relationship between periodontal inflammation and calcium channel blockers induced gingival overgrowth—a cross-sectional study in a Japanese population

The effects of QMix and EndoActivator on postoperative pain in mandibular molars with nonvital pulps: a randomized clinical trial

Osteotomy speed, heat development, and bone structure influence by various piezoelectric systems—an in vitro study

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

Newsletter