“…In this context, it should be realized that the absolute necessity to stay short of the apical constriction when instrumenting root canals of teeth with apical periodontitis is a paradigm which has recently been proven wrong (140).…”
Section: Topical Inter-visit Antiseptics To Be Consideredmentioning
In this narrative review, the differences between primary root canal treatments and re‐treatments are explored in view of optimal disinfection of the root canal system. A critical appraisal of the literature raises doubt as to whether the microbiota found in re‐treatment cases per se is more resistant to antiseptics than the counterpart found in primary infections. In reality, primary, refractory, and persisting endodontic infections are all biofilm‐related; their microbial composition is dictated by local ecological factors rather than treatment history. Furthermore, their resistance to antimicrobials is most likely similar. The true difficulty in disinfecting root canal systems during re‐treatment cases is to achieve access to the infected areas. Iatrogenic alterations in canal anatomy and the presence of root filling material hamper the diffusion of disinfectants to these target areas. Consequently, cleaning the canal systems of foreign material and creating a canal shape that can properly be disinfected should be the initial aims. Ways of achieving these goals are discussed. Subsequently, the disinfection regimen can be similar to that in primary root canal infections. However, time is a crucial factor in re‐treatments, and thus a multiple‐visit approach is preferable in more complex cases in order to ensure more complete disinfection has been achieved.
“…In this context, it should be realized that the absolute necessity to stay short of the apical constriction when instrumenting root canals of teeth with apical periodontitis is a paradigm which has recently been proven wrong (140).…”
Section: Topical Inter-visit Antiseptics To Be Consideredmentioning
In this narrative review, the differences between primary root canal treatments and re‐treatments are explored in view of optimal disinfection of the root canal system. A critical appraisal of the literature raises doubt as to whether the microbiota found in re‐treatment cases per se is more resistant to antiseptics than the counterpart found in primary infections. In reality, primary, refractory, and persisting endodontic infections are all biofilm‐related; their microbial composition is dictated by local ecological factors rather than treatment history. Furthermore, their resistance to antimicrobials is most likely similar. The true difficulty in disinfecting root canal systems during re‐treatment cases is to achieve access to the infected areas. Iatrogenic alterations in canal anatomy and the presence of root filling material hamper the diffusion of disinfectants to these target areas. Consequently, cleaning the canal systems of foreign material and creating a canal shape that can properly be disinfected should be the initial aims. Ways of achieving these goals are discussed. Subsequently, the disinfection regimen can be similar to that in primary root canal infections. However, time is a crucial factor in re‐treatments, and thus a multiple‐visit approach is preferable in more complex cases in order to ensure more complete disinfection has been achieved.
“…The tissue of the periapical lesion contains all of the elements of the host response, which are stimulated by and directed against the bacteria in the apical part of the infected root canal (Naidorf , Metzger & Abramovitz , Metzger et al . ). Pushing these same bacteria into the lesion is likely to produce an acute immune response, which may be termed a flare‐up.…”
When EALs are used, local anaesthesia may not be required for root canal treatment in teeth with necrotic pulps and retreatment cases associated with periapical lesions.
“…The kinetics of osseous healing after endodontic treatment of teeth with AP is very slow (32), so much so that of all healed teeth, only about half are healed by 1 year after treatment, <90% are healed at 4 years, and about 95% are healed at 6 years (23,24). Thus, obtaining insight into the prognosis of periapical healing is frequently an advantage in clinical practice, particularly when healing after endodontic treatment is a requisite for extensive restorative and prosthetic treatment plans.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.