4.5 Article

Long-term Survival of Endodontically Treated Teeth at a Public Dental Specialist Clinic

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 176-181

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.002

关键词

Decision making; long-term survival; root filled teeth; specialists

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The long-term survival of endodontically treated teeth is an issue of high priority focus in modern restorative dentistry. In available literature, survival is generally high and comparable with implants. For more compromised teeth treated in a specialist clinic, survival-rate may be lower. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the 10-year survival rate of teeth treated in a public endodontic specialist clinic. Methods: From a database of 15,000 examined teeth, 420 teeth in 330 patients were randomly selected and included. Available potential preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative prognotic factors were registered. Ten-year tooth survival was recorded by scrutinizing records and by contacting referring dentists and patients. Results: The overall Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year survival rate was 81.5% (95% confidence interval [Cl], 76.7%-85.5%). Placement of a crown, adjusted hazard ratio 0.27 (95% Cl, 0.12 0.61), P = .0016, and age-adjusted hazard ratio 1.31 per 10 years (95% Cl, 1.11-1.55), P = .0012, were significant independent predictors for estimated survival rate. Seventy-three teeth (17.4%) in 69 patients were extracted during the 10-year follow-up period. The declared reason for extraction was related to endodontic diagnoses in only 5 of the cases (6.8%). Conclusions: Approximately 80% of the teeth treated at this specialist clinic in endodontics survived at least for 10 years. Teeth in young persons and teeth restored with a crown postoperatively survived significantly better. To further explore the importance of the postoperative restoration in endodontically treated teeth, randomized controlled trials need be carried out.

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