| Literature DB >> 34833455 |
Alexandra Vinagre1,2, Catarina Castanheira1, Ana Messias3,4, Paulo J Palma2,5, João C Ramos1,2.
Abstract
Background andEntities:
Keywords: pulp canal obliteration; root canal treatment; tooth bleaching; tooth injuries; watchful waiting
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34833455 PMCID: PMC8625069 DOI: 10.3390/medicina57111237
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) ISSN: 1010-660X Impact factor: 2.430
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram of systematic searching process.
Characteristics of the included studies, such as demographic data, clinical signs and symptoms and diagnostic tests.
| Reference | Country | Case Number | Age (Y) and Gender of Patient | Tooth | Trauma | Crown | Symptoms | Percussion | Pulp Sensibility Tests | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of | Time of Injury | Thermal | Electric | ||||||||
| Aldaijy and Alsahaly, 2018 [ | Saudi Arabia | 1 | 36 Female | 11 | NR | 20 y ago | Yes (Cervical: A3.5 | No | NR | NR | NR |
| Biagi, 2014 [ | Italy | 2 | 9 Male | 21 (Immature, open apex) | Avulsion | 6 m ago | No | No | NR | Pos | |
| De Cleen, 2002 [ | Netherlands | 3 | 34 Female | 11 | Uncomplicated crown fracture | 25 y ago | Yes (NR) | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Connert et al., 2018 [ | Switzerland | 4 | 51 Male | 31 | NR | >30 y ago | Yes (Yellow) | Yes | Yes | Neg | Neg |
| 41 | NR | >30 y ago | Yes (Yellow) | Yes | Yes | Neg | Neg | ||||
| Gomes et al., 2013 [ | Brazil | 5 | 8 Male | 11 (Immature, open apex) | Intrusion | 7 m ago | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| 21 (Immature, open apex) | |||||||||||
| Johnson et al., 1985 [ | USA | 6 | 8 Male | 11 (Immature, open apex) | Avulsion | 1 y ago | NR | NR | NR | Neg | |
| 21 (Immature, open apex) | Intrusion | 1 y ago | NR | NR | NR | Neg | |||||
| 7 | 8 Male | 21 (Immature, open apex) | Avulsion | 7 m ago | NR | NR | NR | Cold: Pos Heat: Neg | Neg | ||
| Krastl et al., 2016 [ | Germany | 8 | 15 Male | 11 | NR | 7 y ago | Yes | Yes | Yes | Cold: Neg | Neg |
| Kwon, 2019 [ | USA | 9 | NR | 21 | NR | NR | Yes (Cervical and Middle: D3 Incisal: A2) | NR | NR | NR | Pos |
| Lakinepally et al., 2018 [ | India | 10 | 35 Male | 11 | NR | 3 m ago * | Yes | Yes | Yes | Neg | Neg |
| Lara-Mendes et al., 2018 [ | Brazil | 11 | 26 NR | 21 | NR | 13 y ago | NR | Yes | Yes | Neg | Neg |
| Lise et al., 2014 [ | Brazil | 12 | 24 Female | 11 | NR | 10 y ago | Yes (Yellow) | NR | NR | Neg | NR |
| 13 | 35 Male | 21 | NR | 20 y ago | Yes (Yellow) | NR | NR | Neg | NR | ||
| 14 | 25 Female | 11 | NR | 11 y ago | Yes (NR) | No | NR | Neg | NR | ||
| Mourad et al., 2018 [ | Germany | 15 | 8 Female | 11 (Immature, open apex) | Concussion | 1 y ago * | No | No | No | Cold: | NR |
| Muniz et al., 2005 [ | Brazil | 16 | 48 Female | 11 | NR | ≥12 y ago | Yes (Yellow) | No | NR | Neg | |
| Raghuvanshi et al., 2015 [ | India | 17 | 26 Male | 21 | NR | 5 y ago | Yes (NR) | Yes | No | Neg | Neg |
| 18 | 21 Male | 11 | NR | 2 y ago | Yes (NR) | NR | No | Neg | Neg | ||
| Ramos et al., 2013 [ | Brazil | 19 | 33 Male | 11 | NR | >10 y ago | Yes (NR) | No | NR | Pos | Pos |
| Sacchetto et al., 2011 [ | Brazil | 20 | 8 Female | 21 | Intrusion | 18 m ago | No | NR | NR | Cold: Neg | NR |
| Schindler and Gullickson, 1988 [ | USA | 21 | 10 Female | 11 | Lateral | 6 m ago | NR | No | NR | Cold: Pos | Pos |
| 21 | |||||||||||
| 22 | 48 Male | 11 | NR | 18 y ago | NR | Yes | Yes | Cold: Neg | Neg | ||
| 23 | 35 Male | 21 | NR | 10 y ago | Yes (NR) | No | NR | Cold: Neg | Neg | ||
| Shuler et al., 1994 [ | USA | 24 | 7 NR | 11 (Immature, open apex) | Luxation and | 10 m ago | No | Yes | Yes | Cold: Neg | Neg |
| Silva and Muniz, 2007 [ | Brazil | 25 | 19 Female | 21 | NR | NR | Yes (Yellow) | No | NR | NR | NR |
| Fonseca Tavares et al., 2018 [ | Brazil | 26 | 43 Female | 11 | NR | 25 y ago | Yes (Yellow) | Yes | Yes | Neg | Neg |
| 27 | 24 Female | 11 | Luxation | >11 y ago | Yes (Yellow) | NR | Yes | NR | NR | ||
| 21 | Luxation | >11 y ago | NR | No | NR | NR | NR | ||||
| 22 | Luxation | >11 y ago | |||||||||
m, month(s); y, year(s); NR, not reported; Neg, Negative response; Pos, Positive response; *, second trauma.
Methodological quality assessment of the included studies. Y—total score (1 or 2); U—half score (0.5 or 1); N—no score (0).
| 1—Patient’s Demographic Characteristics | 2—Trauma History | 3—Patient’s Current Clinical Condition | 4—Diagnostic Tests/Methods and Results | 5—Intervention(s)/Treatment Procedure(s) | 6—Follow-up | 7—Outcome | 8—Takeaway Lessons | Total Score | Quality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Patient’s Age, Sex and Medical History | Information about the Dental Trauma: Type and Time of Injury | Clinical Signs (Namely Crown Discoloration) and Symptoms | Diagnostic Tests or Methods Used (Imaging Exams, Pulp Sensibility Tests and/or Percussion Tests) | Description of the Intervention or Treatment Protocol in Detail | Follow-up Period | Assessed Outcomes Related to the Aesthetic Result and/or Pulp and Periapical Condition | Key Lessons Learned from the Case | ||
| Score | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 13 | |
| Aldaijy and Alsahaly, 2018 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | U 1 | Y 2 | U 1 | U 1 | Y 1 | 9 | Low |
| Biagi, 2014 [ | Y 1 | Y 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 13 | High |
| De Cleen, 2002 [ | U 0.5 | Y 1 | U 1 | U 1 | U 1 | N 0 | U 1 | Y 1 | 6.5 | Low |
| Connert et al., 2018 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | N 0 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 10 | Low |
| Gomes et al., 2013 [ | U 0.5 | Y 1 | N 0 | U 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 9.5 | Low |
| Johnson et al., 1985 [ | U 0.5 | Y 1 | N | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 10.5 | Low |
| Krastl et al., 2016 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 12 | Medium |
| Kwon, 2019 [ | N 0 | N 0 | U 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | N 0 | Y 2 | U 0.5 | 7.5 | Low |
| Lakinepally et al., 2018 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | U 1 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 11 | Medium |
| Lara-Mendes et al., 2018 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | U 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 11 | Medium |
| Lise et al., 2014 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | U 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | N 0 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 9 | Low |
| Mourad et al., 2018 [ | Y 1 | Y 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 13 | High |
| Muniz et al., 2005 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 12 | Medium |
| Raghuvanshi et al., 2015 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | Y 2 | U 1 | N 0 | U 1 | Y 1 | 8 | Low |
| Ramos et al., 2013 [ | Y 1 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 12.5 | Medium |
| Sacchetto et al., 2011 [ | U 0.5 | Y 1 | U 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 11.5 | Medium |
| Schindler and Gullickson, 1988 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | U 1 | U 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 10 | Low |
| Shuler et al., 1994 [ | U 0.5 | Y 1 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | U 0.5 | 12 | Medium |
| Silva and Muniz, 2007 [ | U 0.5 | N 0 | Y 2 | U 1 | Y 2 | N 0 | Y 2 | Y 1 | 8.5 | Low |
| Fonseca Tavares et al., 2018 [ | U 0.5 | U 0.5 | Y 2 | Y 2 | Y 2 | U 1 | U 1 | Y 1 | 10 | Low |
Y, Yes; N, No; U, Unclear.
Diagnosis, clinical approach, follow-up period and outcomes.
| Reference | Case Number | Tooth | Diagnosis | Clinical Approach | Treatment Procedures | Follow-Up | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCO Type | Apical Diagnosis | |||||||
| Aldaijy and Alsahaly, 2018 [ | 1 | 11 | Total | Normal apical tissues | Internal bleaching without RCT | Walking bleach technique: rubber dam; access cavity; glass ionomer cement base at the CEJ; 3 applications with 1 week interval of 35% hydrogen peroxide gel | 2 w | Tooth 11 presented a successful aesthetic result and no evidence of periapical changes |
| Biagi, 2014 [ | 2 | 21 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | Yearly during the first 5 y | During the follow-up period, tooth 21 revealed continued root canal calcification and root development. After 12.5 years, the tooth showed total PCO, slight yellow discoloration of the crown and no evidence of periapical changes |
| De Cleen, 2002 [ | 3 | 11 | Total | Normal apical tissues | Prophylactic non-surgical RCT and internal bleaching | Conventional RCT and then walking-bleach technique | Immediate | Tooth 11 revealed sub-obturation and a successful aesthetic result |
| Connert et al., 2018 [ | 4 | 31 | Partial | Radiolucency (CBCT): | Non-surgical RCT | Guided Endodontics: 2 sessions with 2-week intervals; CBCT and intra-oral scan; template; drill Ø0.85 mm; 1% NaOCl; reciprocating file; Ca(HO)2 dressing; vertically condensed gutta-percha, epoxy sealer | Immediate | Teeth 31 and 41 showed an adequate RCT |
| 41 | Partial | Radiolucency: | ||||||
| Gomes et al., 2013 [ | 5 | 11 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | 7.5 y | During the follow-up period, teeth 11 and 21 revealed complete root formation and continued root canal calcification. After 9.5 years, both teeth showed total PCO without clinical or radiographic signs or symptoms |
| 21 | Partial | |||||||
| Johnson et al., 1985 [ | 6 | 11 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | 6 m | Tooth 11 revealed continued root canal calcification, complete apical closure and no evidence of periapical changes |
| 21 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | 6 m | Tooth 21 revealed further apical closure without evidence of periapical changes | ||
| 7 | 21 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | 1 y | During the follow-up period, tooth 21 revealed continued root canal calcification and root development. After 2 years, the tooth showed complete apical closure, total PCO, slight yellow discoloration of the crown and no evidence of periapical changes | |
| Krastl et al., 2016 [ | 8 | 11 | Partial | Radiolucency (CBCT): | Non-surgical RCT | Guided endodontics: 2 sessions with 4-week intervals; CBCT and intra-oral scan; template; drill Ø1.5 mm; 1% NaOCl; K-file size 10; EAL; rotatory instrumentation system up to 50.04 file; Ca(HO)2 dressing; vertically condensed gutta-percha, epoxy sealer | 15 m | Tooth 11 showed no clinical or radiographic signs or symptoms of apical pathology |
| Kwon, 2019 [ | 9 | 21 | Total | Normal apical tissues | External bleaching | Single-tooth in-office bleaching: 2 sessions with 1 week interval, 45 min, 38% hydrogen peroxide gel, gingival resin barrier + single tooth at-home bleaching: 2 weeks, carbamide peroxide gel | Immediate | Tooth 21 presented a successful color matching to the adjacent teeth |
| Lakinepally et al., 2018 [ | 10 | 11 | Total | PL space widening: | Non-surgical RCT | Conventional RCT: 1 session; US BUC 1 tips; DG 16 explorer; DOM; EAL; crown down technique; 17% EDTA gel; 5.25% NaOCl; K-file size 8, C+ file size 8, ProTaper Next rotatory files up to size X2; ProTaper Next X2 gutta-percha, resin-based sealer | 3 m | Tooth 11 was asymptomatic and showed periapical healing |
| Lara-Mendes et al., 2018 [ | 11 | 21 | Total | Radiolucency (CBCT): | Non-surgical RCT | Guided Endodontics: 2 sessions with 14-day intervals; CBCT and intra-oral scan; template; drill Ø1.3 mm; 2.5% NaOCl; EAL; K-file size 10, WaveOne Gold Medium reciprocating; Ca(HO)2 dressing; hydraulic compression technique with gutta-percha, epoxy sealer | 1 y | Tooth 21 was asymptomatic and showed a small alteration in the PL space |
| Lise et al., 2014 [ | 12 | 11 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | External bleaching | Single tooth at-home bleaching: 3 weeks, 1 h/day, 10% carbamide peroxide gel | Immediate | Tooth 11 presented a successful color matching to the adjacent teeth |
| 13 | 21 | Total | Normal apical tissues | External bleaching | Single-tooth in-office bleaching: 9 sessions, 1 h, 3×/week, 37% carbamide peroxide gel without gingival barrier | Immediate | Tooth 21 presented a successful aesthetic result | |
| 14 | 11 | Total | Radiolucency: | External bleaching | At-home bleaching: 9 days, 1 h/day, 37% carbamide peroxide gel | Immediate | Tooth 11 presented a successful color matching to the adjacent teeth | |
| Mourad et al., 2018 [ | 15 | 11 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | Every 6 m during the first 2 y | Tooth 11 was asymptomatic and showed complete apical closure, increased root development, almost complete root canal calcification without evidence of periapical changes or discoloration |
| Muniz et al., 2005 [ | 16 | 11 | Total | Normal apical tissues | External bleaching | In the first phase, single-tooth in-office bleaching: 6 sessions, 3 applications of 10 min, activation with LED in the first 2 min, 35% hydrogen peroxide gel, rubber dam | 15 m | 15 months after the first bleaching phase, a slight recurrence of yellowish color in tooth 11 was observed; 30 months after the first phase, tooth 11 presented a successful aesthetic result and no evidence of periapical changes |
| Raghuvanshi et al., 2015 [ | 17 | 21 | Partial | Sinus tract | Non-surgical RCT | Conventional RCT: 1 session; 17% EDTA; 5.25% NaOCl; K-file size 6, C+ files size 6 and 8, rotatory Protaper files up to F2 | Immediate | Tooth 21 showed an adequate RCT |
| 18 | 11 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Prophylactic non-surgical RCT | Conventional RCT: 1 session; EDTA gel; K-file size 10 to 25, C+ file size 6 and 8, rotatory Protaper files up to F2; F2 Protaper Gutta-Percha point, epoxy sealer | Immediate | Tooth 11 showed an adequate RCT | |
| Ramos et al., 2013 [ | 19 | 11 | Total | Normal apical tissues | External bleaching | In the first phase, single-tooth in-office bleaching: 1 session, 35% hydrogen peroxide gel, gingival barrier + single-tooth at-home bleaching: 4 h/day, 20% carbamide peroxide gel | 2 m | Two months after the first in-office bleaching, a second bleaching session was considered. Five years after bleaching, tooth 11 presented a successful aesthetic result and no evidence of periapical changes |
| Sacchetto et al., 2011 [ | 20 | 21 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | 6 m | Tooth 21 revealed no evidence of discoloration nor periapical changes |
| Schindler and Gullickson, 1988 [ | 21 | 11 | Partial | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | 1 y | Teeth 11 and 21 were asymptomatic and showed continued root canal calcification without evidence of periapical changes |
| 21 | Partial | |||||||
| 22 | 11 | Total | Radiolucency: | Non-surgical RCT | Conventional RCT: 2 sessions with 1-week interval; K files; 5.25% NaOCl; laterally condensed gutta-percha, ZOE-based sealer | 6 m | Tooth 11 was asymptomatic and showed partial periapical healing | |
| 23 | 21 | Partial | Radiolucency: | Surgical RCT | After 2 unsuccessful canal location attempts, an apical surgery was performed. | 1 y | Tooth 21 was asymptomatic and showed complete periapical healing | |
| Shuler et al., 1994 [ | 24 | 11 | Partial | PL space widening and rarefaction: | Non-surgical RCT | Conventional RCT: 1 session; magnification and indirect fiberoptic lighting; EDTA gel; 2.5% NaOCl; K-files up to size 30; laterally condensed and warm gutta-percha, ZOE-based sealer | 6 m | Tooth 11 was asymptomatic, revealing complete root development and periapical healing |
| Silva and Muniz, 2007 [ | 25 | 21 | Total | Normal apical tissues | External bleaching | In the first phase, single-tooth at-home bleaching: 30 days, 6–8 h at night; 16% carbamide peroxide gel | Immediate | After at-home bleaching, tooth 21 presented a successful color matching to the adjacent tooth in incisal and middle region but a higher saturation in the cervical region. After in-office bleaching, the saturation problem in the cervical region was solved and a successful aesthetic result was obtained |
| Fonseca Tavares et al., 2018 [ | 26 | 11 | Total | Radiolucency (CBCT): | Non-surgical RCT | Guided Endodontics: 1 session; CBCT and gypsum model scan; template; drill Ø1.3 mm; 2.5% NaOCl; EAL; K-file size 15, 30.01 and 30.05 rotatory NiTi Logic System; Tagger’s hybrid technique, resin-based sealer | 15 d | Tooth 11 was asymptomatic |
| 27 | 11 | Total | Radiolucency: | Non-surgical RCT | After 1 unsuccessful canal location attempt through conventional RCT, the guided endodontics technique was performed | 30 d | Tooth 11 was asymptomatic | |
| 21 | Total | Normal apical tissues | Watchful waiting | Periodic examination | Immediate | Teeth 21 and 22 were asymptomatic and had no evidence of apical pathology | ||
| 22 | Total | |||||||
Ca(HO)2, calcium hydroxide; CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography; CEJ, cementoenamel junction; d, day(s); DOM, dental operating microscopy; EAL, electronic apex locator; m, month(s); min, minute(s); NaOCl, sodium hypochlorite; PL, periodontal ligament; RCT, root canal treatment; US, ultrasonic; y, year(s); ZOE, Zinc Oxide Eugenol.
Summary of the clinical approaches implemented in teeth with PCO.
| Clinical Approach | Number of Teeth (%) |
|---|---|
| Watchful waiting | 12 (36.4%) |
| External bleaching | 7 (21.2%) |
| Internal bleaching without RCT | 1 (3.0%) |
| Non-surgical RCT | 10 (30.3%) |
| Prophylactic non-surgical RCT | 2 (6.0%) |
| Surgical RCT | 1 (3.0%) |
Figure 2Clinical decision-making algorithm for teeth diagnosed with PCO.