hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5

Klinička i radiološka procjena pacijenata upućenih na endodontsku kirurgiju

Brabara Babić ; Studentica 6. godine integriranog studija Dentalna medicina Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Hrvatska
Janja Barun ; Studentica 6. godine integriranog studija Dentalna medicina Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Hrvatska
Silvana Jukić Krmek ; Zavod za endodonciju i restaurativnu dentalnu medicine Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Hrvatska
Ana Kotarac Knežević ; Zavod za oralnu kirurgiju Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Hrvatska
Ivan Salarić ; Zavod za oralnu kirurgiju Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Hrvatska
Ana Ivanišević Malčić ; Zavod za endodonciju i restaurativnu dentalnu medicine Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Hrvatska

Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (224 KB) str. 132-140 preuzimanja: 34* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Babić, B., Barun, J., Jukić Krmek, S., Kotarac Knežević, A., Salarić, I. i Ivanišević Malčić, A. (2019). Klinička i radiološka procjena pacijenata upućenih na endodontsku kirurgiju. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53 (2), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
MLA 8th Edition
Babić, Brabara, et al. "Klinička i radiološka procjena pacijenata upućenih na endodontsku kirurgiju." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 53, br. 2, 2019, str. 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5. Citirano 17.11.2019.
Chicago 17th Edition
Babić, Brabara, Janja Barun, Silvana Jukić Krmek, Ana Kotarac Knežević, Ivan Salarić i Ana Ivanišević Malčić. "Klinička i radiološka procjena pacijenata upućenih na endodontsku kirurgiju." Acta stomatologica Croatica 53, br. 2 (2019): 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
Harvard
Babić, B., et al. (2019). 'Klinička i radiološka procjena pacijenata upućenih na endodontsku kirurgiju', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53(2), str. 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
Vancouver
Babić B, Barun J, Jukić Krmek S, Kotarac Knežević A, Salarić I, Ivanišević Malčić A. Klinička i radiološka procjena pacijenata upućenih na endodontsku kirurgiju. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2019 [pristupljeno 17.11.2019.];53(2):132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
IEEE
B. Babić, J. Barun, S. Jukić Krmek, A. Kotarac Knežević, I. Salarić i A. Ivanišević Malčić, "Klinička i radiološka procjena pacijenata upućenih na endodontsku kirurgiju", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.53, br. 2, str. 132-140, 2019. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (224 KB) str. 132-140 preuzimanja: 31* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Babić, B., Barun, J., Jukić Krmek, S., Kotarac Knežević, A., Salarić, I. i Ivanišević Malčić, A. (2019). Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Cases Referred to Endodontic Surgery. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53 (2), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
MLA 8th Edition
Babić, Brabara, et al. "Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Cases Referred to Endodontic Surgery." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 53, br. 2, 2019, str. 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5. Citirano 17.11.2019.
Chicago 17th Edition
Babić, Brabara, Janja Barun, Silvana Jukić Krmek, Ana Kotarac Knežević, Ivan Salarić i Ana Ivanišević Malčić. "Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Cases Referred to Endodontic Surgery." Acta stomatologica Croatica 53, br. 2 (2019): 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
Harvard
Babić, B., et al. (2019). 'Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Cases Referred to Endodontic Surgery', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53(2), str. 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
Vancouver
Babić B, Barun J, Jukić Krmek S, Kotarac Knežević A, Salarić I, Ivanišević Malčić A. Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Cases Referred to Endodontic Surgery. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2019 [pristupljeno 17.11.2019.];53(2):132-140. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5
IEEE
B. Babić, J. Barun, S. Jukić Krmek, A. Kotarac Knežević, I. Salarić i A. Ivanišević Malčić, "Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Cases Referred to Endodontic Surgery", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.53, br. 2, str. 132-140, 2019. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/5

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Svrha: Svrha istraživanja bila je radiološki procijeniti kvalitetu punjenja korijenskih kanala pacijentima upućenima na endodontski kirurški zahvat te korelirati nalaz s odlukom o terapiji. Također su se željeli analizirati klinički simptomi i veličina periapikalne lezije na radiogramu i povezati ih s odlukom o terapijskom postupku, uključujući nekiruršku reviziju liječenja, endodontsku kirurgiju i ekstrakciju. Materijali i postupci: Sastavljen je upitnik za prikupljanje podataka. U istraživanju je sudjelovalo 86 pacijenata (sa 109 zuba) upućenih na endodontski kirurški zahvat. Kvaliteta punjenja korijenskih kanala procijenjena je prema homogenosti i duljini punjenja na digitalnim radiogramima. Podatci su analizirani χ2-testom i t-testom. Rezultati: Od zuba kojima je bio potreban endodontski kirurški zahvat, 97,2 % prije je liječio primarni liječnik dentalne medicine, endodontska revizija punjenja primijenjena je u 20,6 % slučajeva, a punjenje korijenskog kanala bilo je homogeno i unutar 1mm od apeksa u 21,6 % slučajeva. Endodontska kirurgija, revizija, ekstrakcija ili nijedan postupak, odabrani su redom u 90,1 %, 5,4 %, 1,8 % i 2,7 % slučajeva. Zaključak: Nizak postotak adekvatnih punjenja korijenskog kanala i visok postotak kad je riječ o odlukama za endodontski kirurški postupak, sugeriraju da postoji potreba za povećanjem svijesti o mogućoj nekirurškoj reviziji endodontskog liječenja.

Ključne riječi
odluka o terapijskom postupku, dentalna radiografija, endodoncija, endodontska kirurgija, revizija liječenja

Hrčak ID: 220901

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/220901

▼ Article Information



Introduction

The purpose of endodontic treatment is to preserve the function of a tooth with pathologically altered pulp, without harming patients’ general health. According to the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) and American Association of Endodontists (AAE) guidelines, the standard procedure includes cleaning, shaping, disinfection and sealing the root canals of the treated tooth (1, 2). The treatment is considered successful when clinical symptoms of periapical disease are absent and radiographic analysis confirms the healing of a periapical lesion (3, 4).

According to the literature, 14-16% of primary endodontic treatments result in failure (5). If radiographic and clinical findings indicate failure, three therapeutic options should be considered: non-surgical retreatment, endodontic surgery (including root-end resection and retrograde cavity filling) or tooth extraction (1, 6). The most frequent cause of failure is persistent infection in the root canal system and/or in periradicular area (7, 8). Other possible reasons include periradicular true cyst, accumulation of endogenous cholesterol crystals in periapical tissue and foreign body reaction due to a root canal overfilling or cellulose-containing materials extruded during treatment (7, 9). When there is residual intraradicular infection, procedural mistakes such as short filling or overfilling, perforations of root canal wall and separated instrument could lead to failure (8, 10).

In the endodontic surgery procedure root tip is surgically removed together with the inflammatory process around it and retrograde cavity prepared and filled (1, 2). Endodontic surgery is indicated when periapical lesions persist and root canal system cannot be adequately cleaned and sealed due to developmental anomalies or iatrogenic causes or when the retreatment would compromise the tooth, e.g. the removal of the intracanal post. Furthermore, endodontic surgery needs to be performed if there is a suspicion of perforation or fracture in the root’s apical third, when histopathological analysis is required and when retreatment is not possible due to the patient related reasons (1, 2, 11). Cohn et al. (12) reported that the success rate of surgical endodontics was 64%, which is considerably lower than the reported success rate of retreatments (80%) (13). Also, undesirable consequences of this surgical procedure are gingival recessions, scars and reduced resistance to occlusal forces and periodontal diseases due to root shortening (14, 15). It is, therefore, crucial that the indications for endodontic surgery are met and that each case is individually assessed (14-16). In the cases where neither retreatment nor endodontic surgery would enable inflammation regression and healing, tooth extraction is the treatment of choice (1).

It has been shown that the unsatisfactory quality of primary root canal fillings with inadequate length and homogeneity of the filling often leads to the development of a periapical process (17). An insufficient awareness of the etiology of persistent endodontic diseases and treatment possibilities leads to the increased referral to endodontic surgery (18).

According to the available literature, firm guidelines for failed root canal treatment seem to lack, and information about treatment decisions (orthograde retreatment vs. surgical treatment vs. extraction- implants) is modest (12, 18). The aim of this research was to determine the connection between the quality of root canal filling, symptoms, status of the tooth and surrounding tissues (clinical and radiographic) and treatment decision. The hypothesis was that endodontic surgery was the treatment of choice in the majority of the referred cases.

Methods

The study was conducted in surgical infirmaries and operating rooms at the Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb and the Clinical Department of Oral Surgery, Clinical Hospital Dubrava, Zagreb from January to April 2017. The research has been conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, and The Ethics Committee of the School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb approved the research and the consent procedure. The written consent was obtained from all the participants who were older that 18, and from the parents of the participants that were under 18 years of age.

Prior to the research, two researchers (BB and JB) were calibrated for estimating clinical and radiographic diagnosis. The criteria for the assessment of clinical and radiographic findings were harmonized by analysing 51 digital retroalveolar and panoramic radiographs from the School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb database, recorded using Minray (for intraoral) and Cranex 3D Ceph (for orthopantomograms) X- ray machines and Scanora software (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland). The analyses were compared, and high degree of congruence was noticed. The results which did not match were processed and discussed and a 100% congruence was achieved.

Eighty-six patients referred to endodontic surgery participated in the study. Only the patients who signed the informed consent were included, and their anonymity was guaranteed. Clinical and radiographic finding, the decision of an oral surgery specialist about further procedure and intraoperative findings were recorded for each case. Dental history included data about previous procedures on the tooth and pain assessment. Clinical examination included tooth and soft tissue inspection. A radiographic analysis was conducted on panoramic (n=2) and intraoral (n=101) radiographs which included the assessment of homogeneity and filling length with respect to the radiographic apex, the presence of a separated instrument in root canal and the presence of perforation (19), the length and type of posts and the size of periapical transparency. When endodontic surgery was indicated, intraoperative findings of bone fenestration, dehiscence or vertical fracture of a tooth was recorded. The radiographs were made and analyzed using Minray and Cranex 3D Ceph machine (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland) and Scanora software (Soredex, Tuusula, Finland).

Cases referred to endodontic surgery for the first time and cases referred to repeated endodontic surgery were joined in one sample. When analyzing the data of patients that had multiple teeth referred for apicoectomy, each tooth was observed and anlyzed individually.

The relationships between radiographically estimated quality of root canal filling (according to homogeneity and filling length), clinical and radiographic variables, variables from dental history and decision about the procedure were statistically analyzed. The χ2-test was used for the analysis of discrete variables and t-test for continuous variables (p < 0.05). The analysis was done using SAS statistical package on Windows platform.

Results

Out of 86 patients that participated in the study, 59.5% were female and 40.5% of them were male. More cases were evaluated in the operating room than in the surgical infirmary (3.8:1). There were no statistical differences between males and females for any variable (p>0.05). Patients’ average age was 44.4 years (14-81 years). Out of 106 analyzed teeth, 97.2% were treated by a general practice dentist. Endodontic retreatment before referring to endodontic surgery was performed in 20.6% of cases. The most common treatment selection was endodontic surgery (90.1%), while retreatment (5.4%), not doing any procedure (2.7%) and extraction (1.8%) were less frequently selected. The majority of the examined teeth were upper incisors (66%). Most of the teeth were prosthetically reconstructed (62.9%) and more than half (53.5%) were supplied with an intracanal post (Table 1).

Table 1 Numbers and percentages of particular clinical and radiological findings recorded in 109 teeth of 86 patients referred to apicoectomy.
N %
Tooth
  11 -maxillary right central incisor 13 11.9
  12-maxillary right lateral incisor 18 16.5
  13- maxillary right canine 11 10.1
  14-maxillary right second premolar 2 1.8
  21-maxillary left central incisor 20 18.3
  22- maxilary left lateral incisor 21 19.3
  23- maxillary left canine 4 3.7
  24- maxillary left first premolar 5 4.6
  25- maxillary left second premolar 3 2.8
  26- maxillary left first molar 1 0.9
  32- mandibular left lateral incisor 1 0.9
  33- mandibular left canine 1 0.9
  34- mandibular left first premolar 1 0.9
  35- mandibular left second premolar 1 0.9
  41- mandibular right central incisor 1 0.9
  42- mandibular right lateral incisor 1 0,9
  43- mandibular right canine 3 2.8
  44- mandibular right first premolar 2 1.8
Prosthetically reconstructed tooth
  Yes 66 62.9
  No 39 37.1
  Single crown
  Yes 33 31.4
  No 72 68.6
  Bridge carrier
  Yes 33 31.4
  No 72 68.6
Number of previous treatments
  0 3 2.9
  1 69 65.7
  2 30 28.6
  3 3 2.9
Attempted revision prior to referral
  Yes 22 20.6
  No 85 79.4
Tooth treated by
  General dentist
  Yes 106 97.2
  No 3 2.8
specialist in endodontics
  Yes 3 2.8
  No 106 9.2
Symptoms
  Spontaneous pain
  Yes 55 50.0
  No 55 50.0
  Pain upon biting
  Yes 31 29.2
  Ne 75 70.8
  Pain to hot/cold
  Yes 16 14.8
  No 92 85.2
  swelling
  Yes 71 65.1
  No 38 34.9
  Sinus tract
  Yes 49 46.7
  No 56 53.3
Root canal length
  Within 1mm from the apex 46 47.4
  > 1 mm short of apex 39 40.2
  > 1 mm overfilled 12 12.4
Homogenous filling
  Yes 45 45.0
  No 55 55.0
Separated instrument within root canal
  Da 3 2.9
  Ne 101 97.1
Intracanal post
  Metal confection
  Yes 8 7.7
  No 96 92.3
  Metal individual
  Yes 22 21.2
  No 82 78.8
  Fiber reinforced composite resin
  Yes 3 2.9
  No 101 97.1
Post lengtth
  < 5 mm in root canal 13 43.3
>5 mm in root canal 17 56.7
Canal not found
  Yes 1 1.0
  No 102 99.0
Size of radiolucency
  No radiolucency 2 2.0
  Radiolucency < 2 mm 19 19.0
  Radiolucency 2 - 5 mm 47 47.0
  Radiolucency > 5 mm 27 27.0
  Lateral radiolucency 5 5.0
Perforation
  Yes 23 23.2
  No 76 76.8
Treatment decision
  No treatment 3 2.7
  Orthograde retreatment 6 5.4
  Apicoectomy 100 90.1
  Extraction 2 1.8
Intraoperative finding
  Bone fenestration
  Yes 65 71.4
  No 26 28.6
  Dehiscence
  Yes 28 31.8
  No 60 68.2
  Vertical fracture
  Yes 0 0.0
  No 88 100.0

Root canal filling was homogeneous and within 1 mm from the apex in 21.6% of cases, while in 78.4% of cases filling was unsatisfactory according to either length or homogeneity. Considering all the variables and the homogeneity of filling (homogeneous or non-homogeneous), a statistically significant difference was noted only with respect to the length of the root canal filling (p = 0.023, χ2-test).

Comparing all the variables with respect to the length of the root canal filling, statistically significant differences were found for the following: the number of previous treatments/retreatments, attempted endodontic retreatment before endodontic surgery, homogeneous filling, spontaneous pain, the presence of intracanal posts (metal individual and composite) and the presence of bone dehiscence (Table 2).

Table 2 The variables that were significantly related to the length of the root canal filling were determined using χ2-test.
Filling length
Total Within 1 mm Less than 1 mm Overfilled p*
N % N % N % N %
Number
of previous
treatments
0 1 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.3 0.031
1 62 66.7 30 71.4 28 71.8 4 33.3
2 27 29.0 10 23.8 10 25.6 7 58.3
3 3 3.2 2 4.8 1 2.6 0 0.0
Was revision attempted
before root-end resection
Yes 20 21.1 8 18.2 6 15.4 6 50.0 0.030
No 75 78.9 36 81.8 33 84.6 6 50.0
Symptoms
Spontaneous pain
Yes 50 51.5 29 63.0 18 46.2 3 25.0 0.043
No 47 48.5 17 37.0 21 53.8 9 75.0
Homogeneous filling
Yes 42 43.8 21 46.7 12 30.8 9 75.0 0.023
No 54 56.3 24 53.3 27 69.2 3 25.0
Intracanal post
Metal individual
Yes 21 22.1 8 18.2 13 33.3 0 0.0 0.036
No 74 77.9 36 81.8 26 66.7 12 100.0
Fiber reinforced
composite sticks
Yes 3 3.2 0 0.0 1 2.6 2 16.7 0.013
No 92 96.8 44 100.0 38 97.4 10 83.3
Presence of bone
dehiscence
Yes 25 32.1 17 47.2 8 24.2 0 0.0 0.011
No 53 67.9 19 52.8 25 75.8 9 100.0

* p = statistical relevance (p < 0,05)

Discussion

Endodontic surgery was the preferred procedure in 90% of the referred cases. The main hypothesis of the research was thus affirmed. Non-surgical retreatment was attempted in a relatively low percentage of the referred cases (20.6%), even though root canal fillings were unsatisfactory in most of them.

Residual infection due to inadequate cleaning and disinfection of the root canal space, or secondary infection due to inadequate obturation/sealing may lead to endodontic treatment failure (20). Intra-radicular microflora is polymicrobial, predominantly anaerobic and resembles to that of an untreated necrotic pulp (21). Therefore, in cases where an orthograde approach is possible, endodontic retreatment should be the treatment of choice. It was reported that the healing of periapical lesions after endodontic retreatment occurs in 74-98% of the cases, while the success rate of endodontic surgery, without previous retreatment, was significantly lower (13, 12, 20). Furthermore, research by Torabinejad et al. (22) showed that the success of orthograde treatment lasted longer. Previous studies also report significant percentage of cases in which endodontic surgery was conducted, although according to the scientifically grounded criteria, orthograde retreatment should have been the treatment of choice (18, 23). It was concluded in previous studies that general dental practitioners do not appreciate endodontic retreatment as a treatment option, and the inclusion of a specialist of endodontics in the decision-making process on endodontic surgery was suggested (18, 23, 24). Moreover, in almost 3% of the cases endodontics was not performed and in more than 65% of cases endodontic treatment was conducted only once, less than 3% performed by a specialist of endodontics.

Oral surgery specialization bias in decision making was the subject of some previous studies where the referred patients were reassessed and based on audit criteria the authors reported that the endodontic surgery had not been indicated in considerable number of the patients (18, 23, 25). Abramowitz et al. (18) came to conclusion that the percentage of “unnecessary“resections” was 55%. Anyway, it is important to point out that the concept of endodontic surgery implies root-end resection with retrograde cavity filling, and that omitting the retrograde filling should negatively affect the outcome of the surgery. Since the purpose of our research was not to define the percentage of “unnecessary” endodontic surgeries, we are unable to give such assessments for our sample. However, we can conclude that certain number of cases could have been treated more conservatively, by an orthograde retreatment approach, especially considering intraradicular infection remaining after endodontic surgery in cases that had not been orthogradely retreated before. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to follow up the cases referred to oral surgery that had been treated surgically and those that had been forwarded to an endodontics specialist for orthograde retreatment. At this point there is no systematic follow up of patients reffered to Oral surgery and Endodontics at the School of Dental Medicine, and majority of patients are followed by their primary dentist. It was therefore at this point difficult to obtain the data necessary for the assesment of the sucess rates of surgical and conservative treatments, and asses the percentage of unnecesary surgeries. We can however notice that in the von Arx et al. (25) study, the percentage of teeth in which an oral surgery specialist decided for root-end resection was significantly lower (59.1%) than in our study (90%). The reason for this difference is that our sample consisted mostly of patients with an already scheduled surgery.

Radiographically estimated quality of root canal fillings done by general practitioners in Sweden was satisfactory in only 31% of the cases and after a course in machine endodontics, the quality was significantly improved and was satisfactory in 51% of the cases (26). Similarly, in our research, 45% of fillings were estimated as homogeneous (Table 1). The Swedish authors reported that the homogeneity and filling length had no influence on the size of the periapical lesion, also similar to our results.

When it comes to symptoms before operation, we found significant connection between the filling length and spontaneous pain (p<0.05). It is interesting that spontaneous pain and alveolar bone loss (presence of dehiscence) were more commonly recorded when the filling was the satisfactory in length (p<0.05), i.e. within 1 mm from the apex.

In our research 21.6% of the cases with adequate fillings had symptoms or did not show signs of healing. The reason for that can be intraradicular infection with microorganisms resistant to intracanal medicaments and irrigants, which lead to failure after lege artis endodontic treatment (7, 27). Additionally, the elimination of infection from the apical part of the canal and consequent failure might be caused by procedural mistakes done during primary endodontic treatment, that are not necessarily radiographically detectable, e.g. transposition and transportation of apex (20, 28). The decision about the treatment should therefore not be based solely on the radiographic finding (17). In our research, the connection between the treatment decision and radiographically estimated quality of filling was not significant (p<0.05). Although the diagnostic value of panoramic radiographs is inferior (29)

The panoramic radiographs were in our study included in the analysis. The reason for including them is their low number (only 2), and their reported sufficient diagnostic value in diagnosing apical periodontoitis (30).

In addition to intraradicular infection, the cause of failure of endodontic treatment can be an extraradicular infection in the form of periradicular actinomycosis, foreign body reaction or true cyst (7, 9). In these cases, healing and/or withdrawal of symptoms after endodontic retreatment cannot be expected, and surgical approach is indicated: root-end resection and the removal of foreign body or excochleation of the radicular cyst (9). However, these treatment failure causes are relatively rare, and intraradicular microbial infection in the apical part of root canal remains the most common cause of endodontic treatment failure (7, 10).

Almost 63% of the cases in our study were prosthetically reconstructed and more than 30% had intracanal post. This made orthograde approach to root canal difficult, and presumably this was the main reason these patients were referred to endodontic surgery, although, according to the criteria of radiographic appearance of the fillings, orthograde retreatment should have been the first choice. In the context of the rationalization mentioned earlier, we realize that endodontic surgery seems like a favourable choice in such cases, because prosthetic work is preserved. Within our sample, 50% of the referred crowned teeth were bridge carriers. Nevertheless, orthograde retreatment of the root canal filling before surgical procedure significantly increases the chances of success of endodontic surgery (20). Even the presence of intracanal posts should not mean immediate exclusion of retreatment as a therapeutic procedure of choice (20, 23). Additionally, great number of posts in our sample was shorter than 5 mm which is also one of the criteria that makes a tooth a potential candidate for orthograde retreatment (23).

Conclusions

Endodontic surgery was a procedure of choice for most patients referred by a general practitioner to an oral surgery specialist. Considering that the percentage of radiographically assessed teeth with unsatisfactory root canal fillings was high, and the percentage of teeth in which orthograde retreatment was attempted prior to the referral to oral surgery specialist was low, we can conclude that the awareness about the possibilities of successful treatment by non-surgical approach is insufficient.

Acknowledgements

The authors deny any conflicts of interest.

The results of this reserach have been presented in the form of poster presentation at the international conference ''Science and clinical work synergy'', Zagreb 2017.

The research presented here was supported by the University of Zagreb, grant ''Comparative evaluation of rotational and reciprocal endoodntics“, 2017.

Notes

[1] Conflicts of interest The authors report no conflict of interest.

Literature

1 

European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J. 2006;39(12):921–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01180.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17180780

2 

MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. American Association of Endodontists. Guide to clinical endodontics. 6th ed. [Internet]. Chicago, IL: American Association of Endodontists; c2016 [cited 2017 Sept 15]. Available from:http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aae/guidetoclinicalendodontics6/index.php#/1.

3 

Chugal NM, Clive JM, Spångberg LS. 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. 2001 Mar;91(3):342–52. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.113106 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11250634

4 

MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. American Association of Endodontists, Special Committee. Glossary of endodontic terms. 9th ed. [Internet]. Chicago, IL: American Association of Endodontists; c2016 [cited 2017 Sept 15]. Available from: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aae/endodonticglossary2016/index.php#/1.

5 

Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature - part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J. 2007 Dec;40(12):921–39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01322.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931389

6 

Peikoff MD. Treatment planning dilemmas resulting from failed root canal cases. Aust Endod J. 2005 Apr;31(1):15–20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2005.tb00201.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15881728

7 

Nair PNR. Endodontic failures: the pathobiology of posttreatment apical periodontitis. In: Cohen S, Hargreaves KM, editors. Pathways of the Pulp. 9th ed. St Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 918-943.

8 

Chandra A. Discuss the factors that affect the outcome of endodontic treatment. Aust Endod J. 2009 Aug;35(2):98–107. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2009.00199.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19703084

9 

Ricucci D, Siqueira JF Jr. Failure of the endodontic treatment. In: Ricucci D, Siqueira JF Jr, editors. Endodontology: an integrated biological and clinical view. London: Quintessence Publishing; 2013. p. 315-365.

10 

Lin LM, Rosenberg PA, Lin J. Do procedural errors cause endodontic treatment failure? J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Feb;136(2):187–93, quiz 231. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0140 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15782522

11 

Evans GE, Bishop K. Renton T-editors. Guidelines for surgical endodontics. 2nd ed. London: The Royal College of Surgeons of England; 2012.

12 

Cohn SA. Treatment choices for negative outcomes with non-surgical root canal treatment: non-surgical retreatment vs. surgical retreatment vs. Implants. Endod Topics. 2005;11:4–24. [NIJE U PUBMEDU] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00163.x

13 

Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. Int Endod J. 2011;44(7):583–609. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01872.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21366626

14 

Taschieri S, Corbella S, Del Fabbro M. Do gingival soft tissues benefit from the application of a papilla preservation flap technique in endodontic surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Oct;72(10):1898–908. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2014.05.011 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25234525

15 

Yun HJ, Jeong JS, Pang NS, Kwon IK, Jung BY. Radiographic assessment of clinical root-crown ratios of permanent teeth in a healthy Korean population. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014;6(3):171–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.171 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25006380

16 

Messer HH. Clinical judgement and decision making in endodontics. Aust Endod J. 1999 Dec;25(3):124–32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.1999.tb00119.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11410981

17 

Matijević J, Čizmeković Dadić T, Prpić Mehičić G, Anić I, Šlaj M, Jukić Krmek S. Prevalence of apical periodontitis and quality of root canal fillings in population of Zagreb, Croatia: a cross-sectional study. Croat Med J. 2011 Dec 15;52(6):679–87. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2011.52.679 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22180266

18 

Abramovitz I, Better H, Shacham A, Shlomi B, Metzger Z. Case selection for apical surgery: a retrospective evaluation of associated factors and rational. J Endod. 2002 Jul;28(7):527–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200207000-00010 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126382

19 

Eleftheriadis GI, Lambrianidis TP. Technical quality of root canal treatment and detection of iatrogenic errors in an undergraduate dental clinic. Int Endod J. 2005;38(10):725–34. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01008.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16164687

20 

Roda RS, Gettleman BH. Nonsurgical retreatment. In Cohen S, Hargreaves KM, editors. Pathways of the pulp. 9th ed. ST Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 994-1010.

21 

Sundqvist G. Ecology of the root canal flora. J Endod. 1992 Sep;18(9):427–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80842-3 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9796509

22 

Torabinejad M, Corr R, Handysides R, Shabahang S. Outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment and endodontic surgery: a systematic review. J Endod. 2009;35(7):930–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.023 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19567310

23 

Beckett H. Impact of a restorative dentistry service on the prescription of apical surgery in a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1996;78(4):369–71. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8712654

24 

Çiçek E, Özsezer-Demiryürek E, Özerol-Keskin NB, Murat N. Comparison of treatment choices among endodontists, postgraduate students, undergraduate students and general dentists for endodontically treated teeth. Int Dent J. 2016 Aug;66(4):201–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/idj.12222 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27061179

25 

von Arx T, Roux E, Bürgin W. Treatment decisions in 330 cases referred for apical surgery. J Endod. 2014 Feb;40(2):187–91. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.024 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24461402

26 

Koch M, Wolf E, Tegelberg A, Petersson K. Effect of education intervention on the quality and long-term outcomes of root canal treatment in general practice. Int Endod J. 2015 Jul;48(7):680–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iej.12367 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25112721

27 

Toljan I, Bago Jurič I, Anić I. Eradication of Intracanal Enterococcus Faecalis Biofilm by Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation and RinsEndo System. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2016;50(1):14–22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc50/1/3 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27688422

28 

Lopes DS, Pessoa MA, Aguiar CM. Assessment of the Centralization of Root Canal Preparation with Rotary Systems. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2016;50(3):242–50. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc50/3/7 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27847398

29 

Mishra I, Karjodkar FR, Sansare K, Dora AC, Tambawala SS, Kapoor R, et al. Diagnostic Value of Extraoral Periapical Radiograph in Comparison to Intraoral Periapical Radiograph: A Cross-sectional, Institutional Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):406–9. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30166835

30 

Nardi C, Calistri L, Grazzini G, Desideri I, Lorini C, Occhipinti M, et al. Is Panoramic Radiography an Accurate Imaging Technique for the Detection of Endodontically Treated Asymptomatic Apical Periodontitis? J Endod. 2018 Oct;44(10):1500–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.07.003 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30154006


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

[engleski]

Posjeta: 111 *