3.8 Article

Long-Term Follow-Up of Nonsurgical Endodontic Treatments Performed by One Specialist: A Retrospective Cohort Study about Tooth Survival and Treatment Success

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY
Volume 2020, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2020/8855612

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The main aim of the retrospective cohort study was to evaluate tooth survival after the endodontic treatment over a period of more than 20 years. Moreover, success of the treatment and the correlation between baseline parameters and the outcomes were analyzed, and causes were recorded. Materials and Methods. Clinical records (including radiographs) of subjects treated with endodontic procedures (both primary and secondary (nonsurgical retreatment)) were collected and analyzed, covering a period of up to 29 years. Type of the treatment, technique, adequacy of treatment performed, presence of baseline radiolucency, and symptoms at baseline were recorded. Moreover, failure (presence of radiolucency 2 years after treatment) and tooth extraction data and causes of them were recorded. Outcomes were explored by using survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier estimates and survival table analysis) and regression analysis (Cox regression). Results. A total of 2,679 endodontically treated teeth were included in the analysis. After 20 years from the treatment, the cumulative survival rate for primary and secondary treatments was 84.10% (80.99%-87.21%) and 89.79% (86.68%-92.90%), respectively. No differences were found between primary and secondary treatments or with regard to the technique adopted. The presence of periapical radiolucency was correlated to higher odds of tooth extraction. Conclusions. Despite the limitations of the study, we can assume that the proportion of retained endodontically treated teeth was significantly high over a long-term period.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available