OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study (1) compared the outcome of root canal treatment performed by an endodontist using 1 of 2 different protocols and (2) evaluated the influence of factors affecting outcome. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 200 teeth and 489 roots (Protocol A, 83 teeth/200 roots; Protocol B, 117 teeth/289 roots) treated nonsurgically with root canal 4 to 5 years previously were examined clinically and radiographically according to strict criteria. Generalized estimating equations were used to perform logistic regression to analyze data. RESULTS: The rate of complete healing for Protocol A (78%) was similar to that of Protocol B (76%). The pulpal status (odds ratio = 2.399, P =.040) and presence (odds ratio = 1.696, P = 0.015) and size (odds ratio = 0.823, P <.001) of periapical lesion were the only factors significantly affecting treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: The preoperative status of the pulp and the presence and extent of periapical periodontitis were important prognostic determinants of treatment outcome in this study.
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study (1) compared the outcome of root canal treatment performed by an endodontist using 1 of 2 different protocols and (2) evaluated the influence of factors affecting outcome. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 200 teeth and 489 roots (Protocol A, 83 teeth/200 roots; Protocol B, 117 teeth/289 roots) treated nonsurgically with root canal 4 to 5 years previously were examined clinically and radiographically according to strict criteria. Generalized estimating equations were used to perform logistic regression to analyze data. RESULTS: The rate of complete healing for Protocol A (78%) was similar to that of Protocol B (76%). The pulpal status (odds ratio = 2.399, P =.040) and presence (odds ratio = 1.696, P = 0.015) and size (odds ratio = 0.823, P <.001) of periapical lesion were the only factors significantly affecting treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: The preoperative status of the pulp and the presence and extent of periapical periodontitis were important prognostic determinants of treatment outcome in this study.
Authors: M Kunkel; S Allroggen; C Appel; C Bargholz; R Biffar; P Boehme; P Engel; W Esser; J Fedderwitz; M Frank; M Georgi; T Heurich; I Kopp; B Kreusser; T E Reichert; F Sanner; R Singer; H J Staehle; H Terheyden; W Wagner; G Wahl; D Weingart; R Werkmeister; M Hülsmann Journal: Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir Date: 2007-11
Authors: Luis M Ferrández; Yuan-Ling Ng; John S Rhodes; Sarjoo S Mistry; Kishor Gulabivala Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Donald R Nixdorf; Estephan J Moana-Filho; Alan S Law; Lisa A McGuire; James S Hodges; Mike T John Journal: J Endod Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Brian M Gillen; Stephen W Looney; Li-Sha Gu; Bethany A Loushine; Roger N Weller; Robert J Loushine; David H Pashley; Franklin R Tay Journal: J Endod Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Susan D Bernstein; Allan J Horowitz; Martin Man; Hongyu Wu; Denise Foran; Donald A Vena; Damon Collie; Abigail G Matthews; Frederick A Curro; Van P Thompson; Ronald G Craig Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.634