C Ungerechts1, A Bårdsen, I Fristad. 1. Department of Clinical Dentistry-Endodontics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the incidence of instrument fracture during nonsurgical root canal treatment performed by undergraduate dental students and to assess the outcome of the treatment if the remaining fragment was left or removed from the root canal. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis was performed by reviewing assessment forms (n = 3854) filled out for each root canal treatment over a 10-year period (1997-2006) at the University of Bergen, Norway. Based on the assessment forms, all instrument fractures and data concerning type and dimension of the fractured instruments were identified. Moreover, the affected tooth, root, root curvature and the vertical level of the fragment in the root canal were recorded. To assess the outcome of the root canal treatment, radiographs taken at follow-ups were evaluated by two individual examiners. RESULTS: The overall incidence of instrument fracture during the period was 1.0% on a tooth level. Instrument fracture occurred significantly more often in molars and in teeth rated as difficult preoperatively. Of all instrument fractures, 39.5% were located in the mesio-buccal canals of molars, and 76.5% of the fragments were located apically. A significant high percentage of instruments of small apical diameter (sizes 006-015) fractured in relative straight root canals. The treatment was successful in 71.4% of the cases where the instrument fragment was removed, but only in 56.5% of the cases where the fragment remained in the root canal. Significantly more instruments were removed from teeth with a primary infection (P ≤ 0.05). The success rate for teeth with instrument fracture was 72.7% for vital teeth, 58.3% for primary infected teeth and 42.9% in retreatment cases. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, the results indicate that the preoperative diagnosis is important for the final treatment outcome and that removal of the fragment is important in cases with primary infection.
AIM: To investigate the incidence of instrument fracture during nonsurgical root canal treatment performed by undergraduate dental students and to assess the outcome of the treatment if the remaining fragment was left or removed from the root canal. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis was performed by reviewing assessment forms (n = 3854) filled out for each root canal treatment over a 10-year period (1997-2006) at the University of Bergen, Norway. Based on the assessment forms, all instrument fractures and data concerning type and dimension of the fractured instruments were identified. Moreover, the affected tooth, root, root curvature and the vertical level of the fragment in the root canal were recorded. To assess the outcome of the root canal treatment, radiographs taken at follow-ups were evaluated by two individual examiners. RESULTS: The overall incidence of instrument fracture during the period was 1.0% on a tooth level. Instrument fracture occurred significantly more often in molars and in teeth rated as difficult preoperatively. Of all instrument fractures, 39.5% were located in the mesio-buccal canals of molars, and 76.5% of the fragments were located apically. A significant high percentage of instruments of small apical diameter (sizes 006-015) fractured in relative straight root canals. The treatment was successful in 71.4% of the cases where the instrument fragment was removed, but only in 56.5% of the cases where the fragment remained in the root canal. Significantly more instruments were removed from teeth with a primary infection (P ≤ 0.05). The success rate for teeth with instrument fracture was 72.7% for vital teeth, 58.3% for primary infected teeth and 42.9% in retreatment cases. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, the results indicate that the preoperative diagnosis is important for the final treatment outcome and that removal of the fragment is important in cases with primary infection.
Authors: Konstantinos Kalogeropoulos; Alexandra Xiropotamou; Despina Koletsi; Giorgos N Tzanetakis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390