| Literature DB >> 28464019 |
Andrej M Kielbassa1, Wilhelm Frank2, Theresa Madaus1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28464019 PMCID: PMC5413016 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Prevalence of apical pathosis in various countries (compilation of the major and most recent observational studies per region).
| Region | Country | [Reference] | Total teeth (N) | Teeth with AP (n) | Teeth with AP (%) | RCF teeth (n) | RCF teeth with AP (n) | RCF teeth with AP (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Africa | Nigeria | [ | 21,468 | 3,083 | 14.36 | 2,625 | 1,068 | 40.69 |
| South America | Brazil | [ | 25,292 | 1,700 | 6.72 | 1,754 | 293 | 16,70 |
| Asia | India | [ | 30,098 | 1,759 | 5.84 | 1,234 | 462 | 37.44 |
| Iran | [ | 28,463 | N/A | N/A | 1,013 | 527 | 52.02 | |
| Europe | Croatia | [ | 38,440 | 3,251 | 8.46 | 3,279 | 1,772 | 54.04 |
| Cyprus | [ | 24,730 | 1,734 | 7.01 | 2,200 | 1,364 | 62.00 | |
| Finland | [ | 120,635 | 5,335 | 4.42 | 7,986 | 1,222 | 15.30 | |
| Turkey | [ | 28,974 | 647 | 2.23 | 459 | 193 | 42.05 | |
| Turkey | [ | 11,542 | 189 | 1.64 | 179 | 68 | 37.99 | |
| Turkey | [ | 23,268 | 287 | 1.23 | 601 | 95 | 15.81 | |
| 352,910 | 17,985 | 21,330 | 7,064 | |||||
AP (apical pathosis); RCF (root canal filled).
Distribution of patients and (root canal filled) teeth according to age and gender.
| Age (years) | Gender | All patients (N) | Patients with AP (n) | All teeth (N) | Teeth with AP (n) | Teeth with AP (%) | RCF teeth (n) | RCF teeth with AP (n) | RCF teeth with AP (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 83 | 24 | 2,298 | 55 | 2.4 | 50 | 29 | 58.0 | |
| Female | 89 | 18 | 2,449 | 44 | 1.8 | 59 | 29 | 49.2 | |
| Male | 50 | 25 | 1,317 | 50 | 3.8 | 81 | 41 | 50.6 | |
| Female | 57 | 29 | 1,496 | 60 | 4.0 | 98 | 45 | 45.9 | |
| Male | 69 | 53 | 1,759 | 125 | 7.1 | 199 | 99 | 49.7 | |
| Female | 104 | 62 | 2,556 | 148 | 5.8 | 268 | 104 | 38.8 | |
| Male | 83 | 61 | 1,900 | 160 | 8.4 | 251 | 113 | 45.0 | |
| Female | 146 | 107 | 3,076 | 258 | 8.4 | 490 | 203 | 41.4 | |
| Male | 85 | 63 | 1,588 | 172 | 10.8 | 297 | 129 | 43.4 | |
| Female | 97 | 70 | 1,908 | 184 | 9.6 | 374 | 133 | 35.6 | |
| Male | 60 | 41 | 1,017 | 88 | 8.7 | 142 | 63 | 44.4 | |
| Female | 77 | 52 | 1,222 | 110 | 9.0 | 195 | 78 | 40.0 | |
AP (apical pathosis); RCF (root canal filled).
Distribution of evaluated variables with root canal filled teeth (descriptive statistics including non-assessable aspects).
| Variable | Condition | Number (n) | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 2,504 | 86.1 | |
| No (apical pathosis only, including 15 non-assessable cases) | 403 | 13.9 | |
| 0 to 2 mm short of apex | 499 | 20.8 | |
| (non-assessable: 106) | Under-filling | 1,809 | 75.4 |
| Over-filling | 90 | 3.8 | |
| Adequate | 724 | 29.6 | |
| (non-assessable: 59) | Inhomogeneous | 1,721 | 70.4 |
| Yes | 194 | 8.0 | |
| (non-assessable: 82) | No | 2,228 | 92.0 |
| Post | 153 | 7.5 | |
| (non-assessable: 53) | Screw | 55 | 2.7 |
| Too short | 441 | 21.6 | |
| No | 1,391 | 68.2 | |
| Yes | 126 | 5.1 | |
| (non-assessable: 41) | No | 2,337 | 94.9 |
| Fillings | 1,052 | 52.7 | |
| Partial crowns | 24 | 1.2 | |
| (non-assessable: 96) | Crowns | 921 | 46.1 |
| Adequate | 1,180 | 46.5 | |
| (non-assessable: 368) | Inadequate/missing | 1,359 | 53.5 |
| Yes | 1,315 | 48.0 | |
| (non-assessable: 165) | No | 1,427 | 52.0 |
| Yes | 1,454 | 52.4 | |
| (non-assessable: 131) | No | 1,322 | 47.6 |
Fig 1Distribution of apical pathosis (AP).
Distribution is given by type of tooth, by jaw, and by gender for all root canal filled teeth (n = 2,373; note that total number of teeth represents unequivocal scores of the evaluators).
Periradicular status in relation to various factors.
| Covariate | N (%) | No apical pathosis | Apical pathosis | OR (CI 95%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.0001 | 0.032 (0.019–0.053) | 0.36 | ||||
| No | 403 (14.5) | 15 (3.7) | 388 (96.3) | |||
| Yes | 2,373 (85.5) | 1,307 (55.1) | 1,066 (44.9) | |||
| <0.0001 | 1.639 (1.331–2.019) | 0.10 | ||||
| Adequate (0 to 2 mm) | 482 (20.9) | 313 (64.9) | 169 (35.1) | |||
| Inadequate (short of apex/overfilled) | 1,821 (79.1) | 966 (53.0) | 855 (47.0) | |||
| <0.0001 | 1.599 (1.334–1.918) | 0.11 | ||||
| Adequate | 702 (30.0) | 444 (63.2) | 258 (36.8) | |||
| Inadequate | 1,640 (70.0) | 850 (51.8) | 790 (48.2) | |||
| <0.0001 | 2.261 (1.666–3.069) | 0.11 | ||||
| No | 2,129 (91.7) | 1,214 (57.0) | 915 (43.0) | |||
| Yes | 192 (8.3) | 71 (37.0) | 121 (63.0) | |||
| <0.0001 | 0.529 (0.437–0.641) | 0.15 | ||||
| No | 1,346 (68.1) | 559 (41.5) | 787 (58.5) | |||
| Yes (including short lengths) | 630 (31.9) | 361 (57.3) | 269 (42.7) | |||
| 0.115 | 1.391 (0.922–2.098) | 0.03 | ||||
| No | 2,263 (96.0) | 1,258 (55.6) | 1,005 (44.4) | |||
| Yes | 95 (4.0) | 45 (47.4) | 50 (52.6) | |||
| 0.002 | 0.752 (0.628–0.899) | 0.07 | ||||
| Fillings | 1,018 (52.7) | 445 (43.7) | 573 (56.3) | |||
| (Partial) crowns | 915 (47.3) | 465 (50.8) | 450 (49.2) | |||
| <0.0001 | 1.800 (1.532–2.115) | 0.15 | ||||
| Adequate | 1,123 (46.0) | 618 (55.0) | 505 (45.0) | |||
| Inadequate or missing | 1,317 (54.0) | 533 (40.5) | 784 (59.5) |
* χ2 test; P values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant;
OR (odds ratio); CI (confidence interval); note that total number of teeth represents unequivocal scores of the evaluators;
Interpretation of Φ values: 0.00 to 0.09 = no/negligible; 0.10 to 0.19 = (very) weak; 0.20 to 0.29 = moderate; 0.30 to 0.39 = strong correlation.
Periradicular status in relation to various combined factors ().
| Covariate | N (%) | No apical pathosis | Apical pathosis | OR (CI 95%) | Cramér’s V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <0.0001 | 2.556 (2.076–3.146) | 0.18 | ||||
| Adequate length/homogeneous filling | 226 (9.9) | 147 (65.0) | 79 (35.0) | |||
| Inadequate length/homogeneous filling | 465 (20.3) | 291 (62.6) | 174 (37.4) | χ2 = 81.25 | ||
| Adequate length/inhomogeneous filling | 255 (11.2) | 165 (64.7) | 90 (35.3) | df 1 | ||
| Inadequate length/inhomogeneous filling | 1,341 (58.6) | 667 (49.7) | 674 (50.3) | |||
| 0.004 | 1.853 (1.219–2.819) | 0.07 | ||||
| Adequate treatment/Post or screw | 31 (1.9) | 19 (61.3) | 12 (38.7) | |||
| Adequate treatment/no post or screw | 93 (5.6) | 58 (62.4) | 35 (37.6) | χ2 = 8.55 | ||
| Inadequate treatment/Post or screw | 590 (35.4) | 340 (57.6) | 250 (42.4) | df 1 | ||
| Inadequate treatment/no post or screw | 955 (57.2) | 489 (51.2) | 466 (48.8) | |||
| <0.0001 | 1.789 (1.329–2.408) | 0.09 | ||||
| Adequate treatment/adequate restoration | 128 (6.2) | 90 (70.3) | 38 (29.7) | |||
| Inadequate treatment/adequate restoration | 892 (43.4) | 519 (58.2) | 373 (41.8) | χ2 = 15.05 | ||
| Adequate treatment/inadequate restoration | 77 (3.7) | 43 (55.8) | 34 (44.2) | df 1 | ||
| Inadequate treatment/inadequate restoration | 960 (46.7) | 480 (50.0) | 480 (50.0) |
* χ2 test; P values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant;
OR (odds ratio); CI (confidence interval); note that total number of teeth represents unequivocal scores of the evaluators;
Interpretation of Cramér’s V: 0.00 to 0.09 = no/negligible; 0.10 to 0.19 = (very) weak; 0.20 to 0.29 = moderate; 0.30 to 0.39 = strong correlation.
Fig 2Kiviat diagram visualising the multivariate observations.
Total amount of cases per combination is indicated by numbers (0–700). Inadequate length and inhomogeneous quality of root canal filling (RCF) strongly increased the proportion of apical pathosis (AP), and this was again tremendously affected by poor quality of coronal restoration (n = 2,007; note that total number of teeth represents unequivocal scores of the evaluators).