Long-term evaluation of surgically placed amalgam fillings

Frank, Alfred L.; Glick, Dudley H.; Patterson, Samuel S; Weine, Franklin S.

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81226-4

Cited by 120 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dorn et al (16) in retrospective study found that success rates for IRM (91%) and Super-EBA (95%) were significantly higher than for amalgam (75%). A high percentage of long-term failures of teeth with surgically placed amalgam fillings were also found by Frank et al (18). To eliminate the possible influence of root end filling material on the outcome of treatment, in the present study only cases that used IRM as a retrograde filling material were selected, because it is most preferable (14 -16, 18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Endodontic Treatment: Traditional versus Modern Technique

Tsesis¹,

Rosen²,

Schwartz‐Arad³

et al. 2006

Journal of Endodontics

174

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Endodontic Treatment: Traditional versus Modern Technique

Tsesis¹,

Rosen²,

Schwartz‐Arad³

et al. 2006

Journal of Endodontics

174

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Length of follow-up time affects outcome, and 1-year follow-up periods might be insufficient to predict long-term healing, particularly for cases with preoperative lesions or when the healing is uncertain at 1 year (34,79,80). Frank et al (79) reported surgical outcomes from a population that showed healing at an early recall but found that 43% failed when the recall was extended beyond 10 years. Opposite findings were reported for nonsurgical retreatment by Fristad et al (81) in 2004, who found an improvement in healing at 20-to 27-year follow-up for teeth that demonstrated apical radiolucencies 10 years prior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Nonsurgical Retreatment and Endodontic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Torabinejad

Corr

Handysides

et al. 2009

Journal of Endodontics

333

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment with those of endodontic surgery to determine which modality offers more favorable outcomes. Methods: The study began with targeted electronic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, followed with exhaustive hand searching and citation mining for all articles reporting clinical and/or radiographic outcomes for at least a mean follow-up of 2 years for these procedures. Pooled and weighted success rates were determined from a meta-analysis of the data abstracted from the articles. Results: A significantly higher success rate was found for endodontic surgery at 2-4 years (77.8%) compared with nonsurgical retreatment for the same follow-up period (70.9%; P < .05). At 4-6 years, however, this relationship was reversed, with nonsurgical retreatment showing a higher success rate of 83.0% compared with 71.8% for endodontic surgery (P < .05). Insufficient numbers of articles were available to make comparisons after 6 years of follow-up period. Endodontic surgery studies showed a statistically significant decrease in success with each increasing follow-up interval (P < .05). The weighted success for 2-4 years was 77.8%, which declined at 4-6 years to 71.8% and further declined at 6+ years to 62.9% (P < .05). Conversely, the nonsurgical retreatment success rates demonstrated a statistically significant increase in weighted success from 2-4 years (70.9%) to 4-6 years (83.0%; P < .05). Conclusions: On the basis of these results it appears that endodontic surgery offers more favorable initial success, but nonsurgical retreatment offers a more favorable long-term outcome. (J Endod 2009;35:930-937)

show abstract

“…The disparity of endodontic success published previously could be explained by differences in the study designs, sample sizes, the recall period, and the lack of clear and consistent evaluation criteria for clinical and radiographic parameters of healing (4,5). Other factors that can affect the prognosis in periradicular surgery include the patient's systemic conditions, amount and location of bone loss, the quality of any previous root canal treatment or retreatment, coronal restoration, occlusal microleakage, surgical materials and techniques, and the surgeon's ability (17,18). It is important to understand that the success of endodontic surgery often depends on the condition of the tooth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%