Michael Raedel1, Andrea Hartmann2, Steffen Bohm3, Michael H Walter4. 1. Department for Prosthetic Dentistry, Technische Universität Dresden, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Michael.Raedel@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. AGENON, Gesellschaft für Unternehmensentwicklung im Gesundheitswesen, Friedrichstraße 94, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: ah@agenon.de. 3. AGENON, Gesellschaft für Unternehmensentwicklung im Gesundheitswesen, Friedrichstraße 94, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: bohm@agenon.de. 4. Department for Prosthetic Dentistry, Technische Universität Dresden, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Michael.Walter@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is doubt whether success rates of root canal treatments reported from clinical trials are achievable outside of standardized study populations. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of a large number of root canal treatments conducted in general practice. METHODS: The data was collected from the digital database of a major German national health insurance company. All teeth with complete treatment data were included. Only patients who had been insurance members for the whole 3-year period from 2010 to 2012 were eligible. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted based on completed root canal treatments. Target events were re-interventions as (1) retreatment of the root canal treatment, (2) apical root resection (apicoectomy) and (3) extraction. The influences of vitality status and root numbers on survival were tested with the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 556,067 root canal treatments were included. The cumulative overall survival rate for all target events combined was 84.3% for 3 years. The survival rate for nonvital teeth (82.6%) was significantly lower than for vital teeth (85.6%; p<0.001). The survival rate for single rooted teeth (83.4%) was significantly lower than for multi-rooted teeth (85.5%; p<0.001). The most frequent target event was extraction followed by apical root resection and retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these 3-year outcomes, root canal treatment is considered a reliable treatment in practice routine under the conditions of the German national health insurance system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Root canal treatment can be considered as a reliable treatment option suitable to salvage most of the affected teeth. This statement applies to treatments that in the vast majority of cases were delivered by general practitioners under the terms and conditions of a nationwide health insurance system.
OBJECTIVES: There is doubt whether success rates of root canal treatments reported from clinical trials are achievable outside of standardized study populations. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of a large number of root canal treatments conducted in general practice. METHODS: The data was collected from the digital database of a major German national health insurance company. All teeth with complete treatment data were included. Only patients who had been insurance members for the whole 3-year period from 2010 to 2012 were eligible. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted based on completed root canal treatments. Target events were re-interventions as (1) retreatment of the root canal treatment, (2) apical root resection (apicoectomy) and (3) extraction. The influences of vitality status and root numbers on survival were tested with the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 556,067 root canal treatments were included. The cumulative overall survival rate for all target events combined was 84.3% for 3 years. The survival rate for nonvital teeth (82.6%) was significantly lower than for vital teeth (85.6%; p<0.001). The survival rate for single rooted teeth (83.4%) was significantly lower than for multi-rooted teeth (85.5%; p<0.001). The most frequent target event was extraction followed by apical root resection and retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these 3-year outcomes, root canal treatment is considered a reliable treatment in practice routine under the conditions of the German national health insurance system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Root canal treatment can be considered as a reliable treatment option suitable to salvage most of the affected teeth. This statement applies to treatments that in the vast majority of cases were delivered by general practitioners under the terms and conditions of a nationwide health insurance system.
Authors: Michael Raedel; Andrea Hartmann; Steffen Bohm; Heinz-Werner Priess; Stefanie Samietz; Ioannis Konstantinidis; Michael H Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: T Thyvalikakath; M LaPradd; Z Siddiqui; W D Duncan; G Eckert; J K Medam; D B Rindal; M Jurkovich; G H Gilbert Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 8.924
Authors: Michael Raedel; Barbara Noack; Heinz-Werner Priess; Steffen Bohm; Michael H Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Jan E Clarkson; Craig R Ramsay; Francesco Mannocci; Fadi Jarad; Sondos Albadri; David Ricketts; Carol Tait; Avijit Banerjee; Chris Deery; Dwayne Boyers; Zoe Marshman; Beatriz Goulao; Alice R Hamilton; Katie Banister; Rosanne Bell; Lori Brown; David I Conway; Pina Donaldson; Anne Duncan; Katharine Dunn; Patrick Fee; Mark Forrest; Anne-Marie Glenny; Jill Gouick; Ekta Gupta; Elisabet Jacobsen; Jennifer Kettle; Graeme MacLennan; Lorna Macpherson; Tina McGuff; Fiona Mitchell; Marjon van der Pol; Rebecca Moazzez; Douglas Roberston; Gabriella Wojewodka; Linda Young; Thomas Lamont Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-04-02