H Tercanli Alkis1, A Kustarci2. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the prevalence of apical periodontitis in root canal treated teeth in Turkish subpopulation and to evaluate the effects of both coronal restoration quality and root canal treatment (RCT) quality on apical periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic images of individuals who applied to our department for different diagnostic reasons were randomly and retrospectively scanned. Total RCT number, RCT quality, type of coronal restoration, restoration quality, periapical status, and total number of teeth were recorded. The criteria used for coronal restorations quality and RCT quality were defined by De Moor et al. and slightly modified by Gunduz et al. Periapical status was assessed by the periapical index developed by Orstavik et al. Pearson's Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis, and the intraobserver agreements were assessed by Kappa coefficients. Values of P < 0.05 were accepted to be meaningful. RESULTS: The total examined teeth number was 6064, of which had 541 (8.9%) RCT. The prevelance of apical periodontitis was 40.5%. The number of adequate RCT was 178 (32.9%), and 138 (77.5%) of them were healthy. The number of adequate coronal restoration was 334, and 62.3% of them were healthy. For the cases that have adequate coronal restorations, there was statistically significant relationship between adequate RCT and periapical status (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevelance of apical periodontitis was 40.5% and there was statistically significant relationship between adequate RCT and periapical status.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the prevalence of apical periodontitis in root canal treated teeth in Turkish subpopulation and to evaluate the effects of both coronal restoration quality and root canal treatment (RCT) quality on apical periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic images of individuals who applied to our department for different diagnostic reasons were randomly and retrospectively scanned. Total RCT number, RCT quality, type of coronal restoration, restoration quality, periapical status, and total number of teeth were recorded. The criteria used for coronal restorations quality and RCT quality were defined by De Moor et al. and slightly modified by Gunduz et al. Periapical status was assessed by the periapical index developed by Orstavik et al. Pearson's Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis, and the intraobserver agreements were assessed by Kappa coefficients. Values of P < 0.05 were accepted to be meaningful. RESULTS: The total examined teeth number was 6064, of which had 541 (8.9%) RCT. The prevelance of apical periodontitis was 40.5%. The number of adequate RCT was 178 (32.9%), and 138 (77.5%) of them were healthy. The number of adequate coronal restoration was 334, and 62.3% of them were healthy. For the cases that have adequate coronal restorations, there was statistically significant relationship between adequate RCT and periapical status (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevelance of apical periodontitis was 40.5% and there was statistically significant relationship between adequate RCT and periapical status.