OBJECTIVE: To evaluate results of root canal treatment in dogs. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: 127 tooth roots in 64 dogs. PROCEDURE: Radiographs obtained before surgery, immediately after surgery, and during follow-up examinations after surgery were evaluated by 2 individuals. Treatment was considered successful if the periodontal ligament space was normal and possible preoperative root resorption, if present, had ceased. Treatment was considered to show no evidence of failure if possible preoperative root resorption had ceased but a preexisting periapical lesion had remained the same or only decreased in size and not complete resolved. Treatment was considered to have failed if a periapical lesion or root resorption developed subsequent to endodontic treatment, if a preexisting periapical lesion had increased in size, or if possible preoperative root resorption appeared to continue after endodontic treatment. RESULTS: Follow-up time ranged from 1 to 60 months (mean, 13 months). Treatment was classified as successful for 87 (69%) roots, as showing no evidence of failure for 33 (26%) roots, and as having failed for 7 (6%) roots. The success rate was lower for canine teeth than for maxillary fourth premolar teeth. Roots with a preexisting periapical lucency or preexisting root resorption had lower success rates. The use of intracanal medication and the method and quality of obturation were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that root canal treatment offers a viable option for salvage of periodontally sound but endodontically diseased teeth in dogs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate results of root canal treatment in dogs. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: 127 tooth roots in 64 dogs. PROCEDURE: Radiographs obtained before surgery, immediately after surgery, and during follow-up examinations after surgery were evaluated by 2 individuals. Treatment was considered successful if the periodontal ligament space was normal and possible preoperative root resorption, if present, had ceased. Treatment was considered to show no evidence of failure if possible preoperative root resorption had ceased but a preexisting periapical lesion had remained the same or only decreased in size and not complete resolved. Treatment was considered to have failed if a periapical lesion or root resorption developed subsequent to endodontic treatment, if a preexisting periapical lesion had increased in size, or if possible preoperative root resorption appeared to continue after endodontic treatment. RESULTS: Follow-up time ranged from 1 to 60 months (mean, 13 months). Treatment was classified as successful for 87 (69%) roots, as showing no evidence of failure for 33 (26%) roots, and as having failed for 7 (6%) roots. The success rate was lower for canine teeth than for maxillary fourth premolar teeth. Roots with a preexisting periapical lucency or preexisting root resorption had lower success rates. The use of intracanal medication and the method and quality of obturation were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that root canal treatment offers a viable option for salvage of periodontally sound but endodontically diseased teeth in dogs.