4.1 Article

Conservative endodontic treatment of teeth fractured in the middle or apical part of the root

Journal

DENTAL TRAUMATOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 261-269

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2004.00272.x

Keywords

calcium hydroxide; endodontics; pulp necrosis; root fracture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

According to treatment type, root-fractured teeth with pulp necrosis or exposed pulps were divided into five groups, group 1: 17 teeth in which the root canal of the coronal fragment only was filled with gutta-percha (GP); group 2: seven teeth in which the root canals of the coronal and apical fragments were both filled with GP; group 3: 19 teeth in which the coronal fragment was filled with GP and the apical fragment was surgically removed; group 4: 68 teeth where the root canal of the coronal fragment was treated with calcium hydroxide and subsequently filled with GP; and group 5: five vital teeth with root and concomitant crown fractures in which the exposed pulps were treated by partial pulpotomy. The frequency of periodontal healing was 76% in group 1, zero in group 2, 68% in group 3 and 86% in group 4. Compared with groups 1 and 2 combined, healing in group 4 was significantly more frequent. In groups 1, 2 and 4, failures occurred significantly more often in teeth showing overfilling, i.e. protrusion of GP into the space between the fragments, compared with teeth without overfilling. All five teeth in group 5 showed healing. It was concluded that root canal filling with GP of the coronal fragment only, with or without surgical removal of the apical fragment, can be successful in selected cases. Treatment of the root canal with calcium hydroxide followed by GP filling appears to be the treatment of choice in root-fractured non-vital teeth. Partial pulpotomy of exposed pulps in five teeth showed results similar to root-unfractured teeth with pulp exposure treated with this technique.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available