BACKGROUND: When faced with a furcated molar, today's clinician must decide between a number of treatment options, including root resection, tooth removal, and implant placement. This paper assesses the results in one private clinical practice of root resection and subsequent restoration or molar implant placement and subsequent restoration. Clinical considerations in treatment selection are discussed. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of treated patients was carried out by examining active and inactive patient charts. When patients had discontinued therapy, every effort was made to determine the reason for leaving the private practice, so as to assess the impact of previously undocumented treatment failure on the statistics in question. RESULTS: A total 701 root resected molars and 1,472 molar implants were evaluated after > or = 15 and 13 years in function, respectively. Resection of the distal root of a mandibular molar demonstrated the lowest success rate (75%). All other success rates for various root resected molars in function ranged from 95.2% to 100%. Lone standing implants in second molar positions demonstrated the lowest success rate (85%). All other implant use in molar positions demonstrated a success rate ranging from 97.0% to 98.6%. Root resected molars and molar implants demonstrated the highest degree of failure when they were lone standing terminal abutments. Seven out of 23 (30.4%) root resected molar failures, and 17 of 45 (37.8%) of the molar implant failures were associated with untreated parafunction. Cumulative success rates were 96.8% for root resected molars and 97.0% for molar implants. Success and failure are discussed by tooth and/or implant position, and resected root, where applicable. Possible ramifications of these findings upon treatment planning are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Both molar root resection and appropriate restoration and molar implant placement and restoration demonstrated a high degree of success in function. However, this success rate is markedly affected when either the root resected molar or molar implant is a lone standing terminal abutment. Care must be taken to choose the appropriate treatment modality for a given patient scenario.
BACKGROUND: When faced with a furcated molar, today's clinician must decide between a number of treatment options, including root resection, tooth removal, and implant placement. This paper assesses the results in one private clinical practice of root resection and subsequent restoration or molar implant placement and subsequent restoration. Clinical considerations in treatment selection are discussed. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of treated patients was carried out by examining active and inactive patient charts. When patients had discontinued therapy, every effort was made to determine the reason for leaving the private practice, so as to assess the impact of previously undocumented treatment failure on the statistics in question. RESULTS: A total 701 root resected molars and 1,472 molar implants were evaluated after > or = 15 and 13 years in function, respectively. Resection of the distal root of a mandibular molar demonstrated the lowest success rate (75%). All other success rates for various root resected molars in function ranged from 95.2% to 100%. Lone standing implants in second molar positions demonstrated the lowest success rate (85%). All other implant use in molar positions demonstrated a success rate ranging from 97.0% to 98.6%. Root resected molars and molar implants demonstrated the highest degree of failure when they were lone standing terminal abutments. Seven out of 23 (30.4%) root resected molar failures, and 17 of 45 (37.8%) of the molar implant failures were associated with untreated parafunction. Cumulative success rates were 96.8% for root resected molars and 97.0% for molar implants. Success and failure are discussed by tooth and/or implant position, and resected root, where applicable. Possible ramifications of these findings upon treatment planning are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Both molar root resection and appropriate restoration and molar implant placement and restoration demonstrated a high degree of success in function. However, this success rate is markedly affected when either the root resected molar or molar implant is a lone standing terminal abutment. Care must be taken to choose the appropriate treatment modality for a given patient scenario.