Sharon M Casey1, Dani Fox2, Wilson Duong3, Nghia Bui3, Naghmeh Latifi3, Veena Ramesh3, Eugene Podborits3, Natasha M Flake4, Asma A Khan5, Jennifer L Gibbs6. 1. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Endodontics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York. 2. Private Practice, Gastonia, North Carolina. 3. Department of Endodontics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York. 4. Department of Endodontics, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, Washington. 5. Private Practice, Gastonia, North Carolina; Department of Endodontics, University of Texas Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 6. Department of Endodontics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York; Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: Jennifer_gibbs@hsdm.harvard.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This multicentered cohort study evaluated factors associated with patient-centered outcomes of immature permanent teeth that received regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) or apexification treatment (APEX). METHODS: A record review identified teeth treated with REPs or APEX between September 2005 and December 2014. Data regarding treatment and patient-centered outcomes were extracted from records with a 3-month minimum recall. When possible, participants presented for an in-person prospective research visit. Patient-centered success was defined as an asymptomatic, functional tooth not requiring further endodontic or surgical intervention after completion of the original treatment during the study observation. Risk ratios and adjusted and unadjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios were calculated. RESULTS: The analytic cohort of 187 individuals included 211 teeth (93 REPs and 118 APEX) with an average follow-up of 32 months. Most cases were successful (81% REPs and 92% APEX) and survived the observation period (96% REPs and 97% APEX). The success rate of REPs was lower than APEX and decreased more rapidly over time. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that when controlling for other variables, the association between treatment type and outcome is not significant. Preoperative infection, teeth with more immature roots, and REP treatment are potentially important predictors. Among teeth receiving REPs, a lower failure rate was observed for teeth that received multiantibiotic paste (3/43) compared with calcium hydroxide (11/45). CONCLUSIONS: Teeth receiving REPs required clinical intervention earlier than teeth that received APEX treatment, although a preoperative abscess and more immature root also affected this outcome. Using multiantibiotic paste versus calcium hydroxide in REPs may improve success.
INTRODUCTION: This multicentered cohort study evaluated factors associated with patient-centered outcomes of immature permanent teeth that received regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) or apexification treatment (APEX). METHODS: A record review identified teeth treated with REPs or APEX between September 2005 and December 2014. Data regarding treatment and patient-centered outcomes were extracted from records with a 3-month minimum recall. When possible, participants presented for an in-person prospective research visit. Patient-centered success was defined as an asymptomatic, functional tooth not requiring further endodontic or surgical intervention after completion of the original treatment during the study observation. Risk ratios and adjusted and unadjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios were calculated. RESULTS: The analytic cohort of 187 individuals included 211 teeth (93 REPs and 118 APEX) with an average follow-up of 32 months. Most cases were successful (81% REPs and 92% APEX) and survived the observation period (96% REPs and 97% APEX). The success rate of REPs was lower than APEX and decreased more rapidly over time. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that when controlling for other variables, the association between treatment type and outcome is not significant. Preoperative infection, teeth with more immature roots, and REP treatment are potentially important predictors. Among teeth receiving REPs, a lower failure rate was observed for teeth that received multiantibiotic paste (3/43) compared with calcium hydroxide (11/45). CONCLUSIONS: Teeth receiving REPs required clinical intervention earlier than teeth that received APEX treatment, although a preoperative abscess and more immature root also affected this outcome. Using multiantibiotic paste versus calcium hydroxide in REPs may improve success.