9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcome of Root Canal Treatments Provided by Endodontic Postgraduate Students. A Retrospective Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study was to assess the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors that influenced complete periapical healing in teeth that underwent primary root canal treatment (RCT), in patients treated by postgraduate students in endodontics. Factors were retrieved and compared with the periapical status during the follow-up visit. Healing was considered as the absence of clinical and radiological symptoms. Variables significantly associated by the chi-squared test were included in a logistic regression model (LRM). Preoperative factors associated with healing were: American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) status ( p = 0.01); the absence of preoperative pain ( p = 0.04); positive response to pulp tests; when the RCT cause was caries, pain, abscess, or sinus tract; probing depth <4 mm; the absence of mobility; absence or <4 mm periapical lesion ( p < 0.01). In the LRM, the factors included were: absence or <4 mm periapical lesion; probing depths <4 mm; RCT caused by caries, pain, abscess, or sinus tract; the tooth was not a bridge abutment. Postoperative factors were: teeth with direct restoration; teeth that did not act as a support for a fixed prosthetic restoration; the favorable condition of the coronal restoration ( p < 0.01). In the LRM, only the status of the coronal restoration was included. Preoperative conditions and the adequate fit of the coronal restoration influenced the outcome of RCT.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature - part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success.

          The aims of this study were (i) to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on the outcome of primary (initial or first time) root canal treatment; (ii) to investigate the influence of some study characteristics on the estimated pooled success rates. Longitudinal clinical studies investigating outcome of primary root canal treatment, published up to the end of 2002, were identified electronically (MEDLINE and Cochrane database 1966-2002 December, week 4). Four journals (International Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Endodontics Radiology and Dental Traumatology & Endodontics), bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles were hand-searched. Three reviewers (Y-LN, SR and KG) independently assessed, selected the studies based on specified inclusion criteria, and extracted the data onto a pre-designed proforma. The study inclusion criteria were: longitudinal clinical studies investigating root canal treatment outcome; only primary root canal treatment carried out on the teeth studied; sample size given; at least 6-month postoperative review; success based on clinical and/or radiographic criteria (strict, absence of apical radiolucency; loose, reduction in size of radiolucency); overall success rate given or could be calculated from the raw data. The findings by individual study were summarized and the pooled success rates by each potential influencing factor were calculated for this part of the study. Of the 119 articles identified, 63 studies published from 1922 to 2002, fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected for the review: six were randomized trials, seven were cohort studies and 48 were retrospective studies. The reported mean success rates ranged from 31% to 96% based on strict criteria or from 60% to 100% based on loose criteria, with substantial heterogeneity in the estimates of pooled success rates. Apart from the radiographic criteria of success, none of the other study characteristics could explain this heterogeneity. Twenty-four factors (patient and operative) had been investigated in various combinations in the studies reviewed. The influence of preoperative pulpal and periapical status of the teeth on treatment outcome were most frequently explored, but the influence of treatment technique was poorly investigated. The estimated weighted pooled success rates of treatments completed at least 1 year prior to review, ranged between 68% and 85% when strict criteria were used. The reported success rates had not improved over the last four (or five) decades. The quality of evidence for treatment factors affecting primary root canal treatment outcome is sub-optimal; there was substantial variation in the study-designs. It would be desirable to standardize aspects of study-design, data recording and presentation format of outcome data in the much needed future outcome studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature.

            AIMS (I): To investigate the effects of study characteristics on the reported success rates of secondary root canal treatment (2 degrees RCT or root canal retreatment); and (ii) to investigate the effects of clinical factors on the success of 2 degrees RCT. Longitudinal human clinical studies investigating outcome of 2 degrees RCT which were published upto the end of 2006 were identified electronically (MEDLINE and Cochrane database 1966-2006 Dec, week 4). Four journals (Dental Traumatology, International Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Endodontics Radiology), bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles were hand-searched. Two reviewers (Y-LN, KG) independently assessed and selected the studies based on specified inclusion criteria and extracted the data onto a pre-designed proforma, independently. The criteria were: (i) Clinical studies on 2 degrees RCT; (ii) Stratified analyses available for 2 degrees RCT where 1 degrees RCT data included; (iii) Sample size given and larger than 10; (iv) At least 6-month post-operative review; (v) Success based on clinical and/or radiographic criteria (strict = absence of apical radiolucency; loose = reduction in size of radiolucency); and (vi) Overall success rate given or could be calculated from the raw data. Three strands of evidence or analyses were used to triangulate a consensus view. The reported findings from individual studies, including those excluded for quantitative analysis, were utilized for the intuitive synthesis which constituted the first strand of evidence. Secondly, the pooled weighted success rates by each study characteristic and potential prognostic factor were estimated using the random effect model. Thirdly, the effects of study characteristics and prognostic factors (expressed as odds ratios) on success rates were estimated using fixed and random effects meta-analysis with DerSimonean and Laird's methods. Meta-regression models were used to explore potential sources of statistical heterogeneity. Study characteristics considered in the meta-regression analyses were: decade of publication, study-specific criteria for success (radiographic, combined radiographic & clinical), unit of outcome measure (tooth, root), duration after treatment when assessing success ('at least 4 years' or '<4 years'), geographic location of the study (North American, Scandinavian, other countries), and qualification of the operator (undergraduate students, postgraduate students, general dental practitioners, specialist or mixed group). Of the 40 papers identified, 17 studies published between 1961 and 2005 were included; none were published in 2006. The majority of studies were retrospective (n = 12) and only five prospective. The pooled weighted success rate of 2 degrees RCT judged by complete healing was 76.7% (95% CI 73.6%, 89.6%) and by incomplete healing, 77.2% (95% CI 61.1%, 88.1%). The success rates by 'decade of publication' and 'geographic location of study' were not significantly different at the 5% level. Eighteen clinical factors had been investigated in various combinations in previous studies. The most frequently and thoroughly investigated were 'periapical status' (n = 13), 'size of lesion' (n = 7), and 'apical extent of RF' (n = 5) which were found to be significant prognostic factors. The effect of different aspects of primary treatment history and re-treatment procedures has been poorly tested. The pooled estimated success rate of secondary root canal treatment was 77%. The presence of pre-operative periapical lesion, apical extent of root filling and quality of coronal restoration proved significant prognostic factors with concurrence between all three strands of evidence whilst the effects of 1 degrees RCT history and 2 degrees RCT protocol have been poorly investigated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              European Society of Endodontology position statement: Use of cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics: European Society of Endodontology (ESE) developed by:

              This Position Statement represents a consensus of an expert committee convened by the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) on the use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in Endodontics. This paper is an update of the ESE CBCT position statement which was published in 2014 (European Society of Endodontology 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12267). Recent review articles provide more detailed background information and the basis for this position statement. It is intended that this position statement will be updated at least every 4-5 years to keep abreast of relevant research. The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance on the application of CBCT in Endodontics. Since 2014, there has been an increase in the number of clinical studies confirming the positive impact of CBCT on treatment planning, decision-making when reviewing cases and reduced practitioner stress levels.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                25 June 2020
                June 2020
                : 9
                : 6
                : 1994
                Affiliations
                Departament of Stomatology, University of Valencia (Valencia-Spain), Gascó Oliag 1, 46010 Valencia, Spain; teo_mdf_15@ 123456hotmail.com (T.N.); doraperez11@ 123456hotmail.es (S.P.); dragonzalezdepereda@ 123456gmail.com (S.G.d.P.); anagonzaliz@ 123456gmail.com (A.G.); iris_3lin@ 123456hotmail.com (I.A.); angelamonzo@ 123456hotmail.com (A.M.); jsanzalex96@ 123456gmail.com (J.L.S.); maria.melo.alminana@ 123456gmail.com (M.M.); forner@ 123456uv.es (L.F.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: llena@ 123456uv.es
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3942-2820
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3497-356X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5438-8085
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1120-3308
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-9883
                Article
                jcm-09-01994
                10.3390/jcm9061994
                7355894
                32630443
                1d294e0e-8119-42ac-8fee-9b3a5881c500
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 May 2020
                : 23 June 2020
                Categories
                Article

                apical periodontitis,intraoperative factors,postoperative factors,preoperative factors,root canal treatment,success

                Comments

                Comment on this article