OBJECTIVES: Undertaking endodontic treatment under general anaesthesia (GA) is often described as difficult and hazardous, but no study reports on safe and efficacious conditions for endodontic treatment under GA. This study aims to evaluate whether compromises made for the endodontic treatment of permanent teeth under GA are acceptable. It describes the quality of endodontic treatment undertaken in two series of consecutive patients treated either under GA or local anaesthesia (LA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-operative data sheets and periapical radiographs were collected for 255 permanent teeth treated under GA during a 4-year period (GA group, 125 patients with special needs) and for 246 permanent teeth treated under local anaesthesia over 7 months (LA group, 180 healthy patients). The radiographic criteria for quality of endodontic treatment (RCQET) were considered satisfactory when (1) the root filling was within 2 mm of the apex; (2) the filling displayed no voids or defects; and (3) all the visible canals had been obturated. The type of tooth, pulpal status and periapical status were considered independent variables for RCQET. RESULTS: The proportion of satisfactory RCQET reached 63% in both groups and differed by type of tooth, being significantly lower for molars than for other teeth. CONCLUSION: From a technical point of view, compromises made for the endodontic treatment of permanent teeth under GA are acceptable. Further studies should be conducted to evaluate the long-term success of endodontic treatment performed under GA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports the feasibility of endodontic treatment for patients treated under GA.
OBJECTIVES: Undertaking endodontic treatment under general anaesthesia (GA) is often described as difficult and hazardous, but no study reports on safe and efficacious conditions for endodontic treatment under GA. This study aims to evaluate whether compromises made for the endodontic treatment of permanent teeth under GA are acceptable. It describes the quality of endodontic treatment undertaken in two series of consecutive patients treated either under GA or local anaesthesia (LA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-operative data sheets and periapical radiographs were collected for 255 permanent teeth treated under GA during a 4-year period (GA group, 125 patients with special needs) and for 246 permanent teeth treated under local anaesthesia over 7 months (LA group, 180 healthy patients). The radiographic criteria for quality of endodontic treatment (RCQET) were considered satisfactory when (1) the root filling was within 2 mm of the apex; (2) the filling displayed no voids or defects; and (3) all the visible canals had been obturated. The type of tooth, pulpal status and periapical status were considered independent variables for RCQET. RESULTS: The proportion of satisfactory RCQET reached 63% in both groups and differed by type of tooth, being significantly lower for molars than for other teeth. CONCLUSION: From a technical point of view, compromises made for the endodontic treatment of permanent teeth under GA are acceptable. Further studies should be conducted to evaluate the long-term success of endodontic treatment performed under GA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports the feasibility of endodontic treatment for patients treated under GA.
Authors: Juan Pablo Loyola-Rodriguez; Veronica Zavala-Alonso; Cinthya L Gonzalez-Alvarez; Lilia A Juarez-Lopez; Nuria Patiño-Marin; Cesar D Gonzalez Journal: J Clin Pediatr Dent Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.065
Authors: Nicolas Decerle; Pierre-Yves Cousson; Emmanuel Nicolas; Martine Hennequin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marie-Laure Munoz-Sanchez; Natacha Linas; Nicolas Decerle; Valérie Collado; Denise Faulks; Emmanuel Nicolas; Martine Hennequin; Pierre-Yves Cousson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390