INTRODUCTION: This cross-sectional study determined the prevalence of apical periodontitis in 1086 root canal-treated teeth from an urban Colombian population and evaluated the association of several factors with the periradicular status. METHODS: Periapical radiographs were used for analyses, and teeth were classified as healthy or diseased according to the periradicular status. Other factors were also evaluated for their association with the periradicular conditions, including gender, quality of both endodontic treatment and coronal restoration, apical level of filling, and presence of post restoration. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of the treated teeth were classified as healthy. Only 33% of the teeth had endodontic treatment rated as adequate. The quality of both endodontic treatment and coronal restoration significantly influenced the periradicular conditions (P < .001). Combined data revealed that teeth with both adequate endodontic treatment and adequate restorations showed significantly better periradicular status than the other combinations (P < .01), except for teeth with adequate treatment and inadequate restoration (P = .08). Canals filled up to 0-2 mm short of the apex had a significantly higher number of teeth rated as healthy than overfilled or underfilled cases (P = .02). Regression analysis showed that the quality of endodontic treatment was the most significant factor influencing the periradicular status (P < .001). Gender and presence of post restoration had no association with the periradicular conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this Colombian population showed a relatively high prevalence of apical periodontitis in root canal-treated teeth. This was largely due to an equally high prevalence of treatments performed under substandard technical quality. The quality of the endodontic treatment was the most determinant factor for healthy periradicular status.
INTRODUCTION: This cross-sectional study determined the prevalence of apical periodontitis in 1086 root canal-treated teeth from an urban Colombian population and evaluated the association of several factors with the periradicular status. METHODS: Periapical radiographs were used for analyses, and teeth were classified as healthy or diseased according to the periradicular status. Other factors were also evaluated for their association with the periradicular conditions, including gender, quality of both endodontic treatment and coronal restoration, apical level of filling, and presence of post restoration. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of the treated teeth were classified as healthy. Only 33% of the teeth had endodontic treatment rated as adequate. The quality of both endodontic treatment and coronal restoration significantly influenced the periradicular conditions (P < .001). Combined data revealed that teeth with both adequate endodontic treatment and adequate restorations showed significantly better periradicular status than the other combinations (P < .01), except for teeth with adequate treatment and inadequate restoration (P = .08). Canals filled up to 0-2 mm short of the apex had a significantly higher number of teeth rated as healthy than overfilled or underfilled cases (P = .02). Regression analysis showed that the quality of endodontic treatment was the most significant factor influencing the periradicular status (P < .001). Gender and presence of post restoration had no association with the periradicular conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this Colombian population showed a relatively high prevalence of apical periodontitis in root canal-treated teeth. This was largely due to an equally high prevalence of treatments performed under substandard technical quality. The quality of the endodontic treatment was the most determinant factor for healthy periradicular status.