4.5 Article

Root Canal Treatment and Apical Periodontitis in a Brazilian Population with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-sectional Paired Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 756-762

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.02.010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: This study radiographically analyzed the prevalence of root canal treatment (RCT) and apical periodontitis (AP) in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and nondiabetic individuals and its association with the history/current status of T1DM. Methods: In a crosssectional paired study, the radiographic records of 50 individuals with T1DM and 100 ageand sex-matched nondiabetic subjects were examined. The presence of RCT and AP was evaluated. Information regarding the history and current status of T1DM was collected from the medical records of each patient. Results: One or more RCTs were found in 76% and 44% of diabetic and nondiabetic subjects, respectively (P =.000). AP in 1 or more teeth was found in most T1DM patients (58%) and in 15% of the control subjects (P =.000). One or more RCTs associated with AP were found in 52% and 8% of T1DM and nondiabetic subjects, respectively (P = .000). Bivariate logistic regression analyses suggested that RCT (odds ratio [OR] = 10.435, P =.000), AP (OR = 3.508, P =.011), and RCT 1 AP (OR 5 7.220, P=.000) were significantly associated with the presence of T1DM. Multivariate logistic regression showed that among T1DM individuals, there is an association between 11-15 years of diagnosis time and at least 1 RCT (OR = 46.316, P =.038) and an association between T1DM control and at least 1 tooth with AP (OR = 15.611, P =.016). Conclusions: RCT, AP, and RCT with AP were more prevalent in individuals with T1DM than in nondiabetic individuals. RCT and AP were associated with the presence of T1DM, specifically RCT with diagnostic time and AP with glycemic control.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据