Keziban Olcay1, Hanife Ataoglu2, Sema Belli3. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: kolcay@medipol.edu.tr. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey. 3. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the factors related to the failure and extraction of unsuccessful endodontically treated teeth. METHODS: A total of 1000 teeth treated with nonsurgical root canal therapy were analyzed, and the following information was recorded for each patient: reasons for failure and extraction, type of tooth, presence and type of coronal restoration, smoking status, age, gender, and level of education. One main reason was recorded for each failed tooth. The associations between reasons for failure, patient, and tooth were tested by using χ2 analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1000 endodontically failed teeth analyzed in this study, 28.1% (n = 281) were extracted, 66% (n = 660) were re-treated, and 5.9% (n = 59) were treated with apical surgery. Among the reasons for failure, restorative and endodontic reasons were seen most frequently (43.9%, n = 439), whereas orthodontic reasons were seldom seen (0.1%, n = 1). The most common reason for extraction was for prosthetic reasons (40.8%), and perforation/stripping was the least common (2.9%). The mandibular first molars were the most frequently extracted teeth (27.4%, n = 77). CONCLUSIONS: The most common reason for the extraction of endodontically treated teeth was for prosthetic reasons. Among the reasons for failure, restorative and endodontic reasons were the most frequently seen, and orthodontic reasons were the most seldom. The teeth that failed most frequently were mandibular first molars, and the teeth that failed least frequently were maxillary third molars. The most common reason for the extraction of failed endodontically treated teeth was for prosthetic reasons.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to review the factors related to the failure and extraction of unsuccessful endodontically treated teeth. METHODS: A total of 1000 teeth treated with nonsurgical root canal therapy were analyzed, and the following information was recorded for each patient: reasons for failure and extraction, type of tooth, presence and type of coronal restoration, smoking status, age, gender, and level of education. One main reason was recorded for each failed tooth. The associations between reasons for failure, patient, and tooth were tested by using χ2 analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1000 endodontically failed teeth analyzed in this study, 28.1% (n = 281) were extracted, 66% (n = 660) were re-treated, and 5.9% (n = 59) were treated with apical surgery. Among the reasons for failure, restorative and endodontic reasons were seen most frequently (43.9%, n = 439), whereas orthodontic reasons were seldom seen (0.1%, n = 1). The most common reason for extraction was for prosthetic reasons (40.8%), and perforation/stripping was the least common (2.9%). The mandibular first molars were the most frequently extracted teeth (27.4%, n = 77). CONCLUSIONS: The most common reason for the extraction of endodontically treated teeth was for prosthetic reasons. Among the reasons for failure, restorative and endodontic reasons were the most frequently seen, and orthodontic reasons were the most seldom. The teeth that failed most frequently were mandibular first molars, and the teeth that failed least frequently were maxillary third molars. The most common reason for the extraction of failed endodontically treated teeth was for prosthetic reasons.
Authors: Marija Čandrlić; Željka Perić Kačarević; Zrinka Ivanišević; Matej Tomas; Aleksandar Včev; Dario Faj; Marko Matijević Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lucas Peixoto de Araújo; Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa; Tiago Schlindvein de Araujo; Felipe Immich; Adriana Fernandes da Silva; Evando Piva Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.411