Endodontic Treatment of Apical Periodontitis

Ørstavik, Dag

doi:10.1002/9781119272014.ch11

Cited by 65 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 237 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The distribution of RCT teeth in our data is, however, similar to 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].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 post-operative 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% anteriors. 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 modelling. 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 anteriors, premolars and molars were 85.6%, 88.8% and 79.7%, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, other studies which have used periapicals to compare success rates for different tooth type show a higher success rate for molars compared with premolars (Hoskinson et al 2002), and incisors and canines (Liang et al 2011, Ng et al 2011. The differing results of these studies could be attributed to the limitations of periapicals to diagnose apical periodontitis in the posterior maxillary regions due to superimposition of roots with each other and other structures, such as the maxillary sinus and the zygomatic arch (Low et al 2008, Ørstavik & Larheim 2008, Shahbazian et al 2015. In the posterior mandibular region, the thick overlying cortical plate of the mandible may also cause anatomic noise and obscure the area of interest (Patel et al 2009(Patel et al , 2015.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pooled analysis of 1‐year recall data from three root canal treatment outcome studies undertaken using cone beam computed tomography

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proportions of favourable outcomes of primary root canal treatments and retreatments assessed with CBCT were lower when compared to periapical radiographs, and also lower than those historically reported by periapical radiograph-based outcome studies. Considering the very high favourable outcome of anterior teeth and premolars compared to molar teeth, future studies assessing the effect of new materials and techniques on the outcome of root canal treatments should be based on preoperative and postoperative CBCT images, and focus on molar teeth.

show abstract

“…Toure et al (4) in their study indicated that periodontal disease is the primary reason for extraction of endodontically treated teeth -40,3%, which differs highly from the results of other studies (5,10,11). The prevention and treatment of apical periodontitis is the main purpose of the root canal treatment (13). The development of endodontic operative techniques has significantly contributed to this purpose (14,15,16).Nevertheless, extraction is still valid as a treatment option, despite the advances of endodontic materials and techniques (17,18).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%