References

Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J. 2006; 39:921-930
Friedman S, Mor C. The success of endodontic therapy − healing and functionality. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2004; 32:493-503
Ng Y, Gulabivala K, Mann V. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: part 1 perapical health. Int Endod J. 2011; 44:583-609
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: part 2: tooth survival. Int Endod J. 2011; 44:610-625
Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:97-113
Torabinajad M, Anderson P, Bader J Outcome of root canal treatment and restoration, implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial dentures and extraction without replacement: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98:285-311
Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, Friedman S. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study. Phases I and II: Orthograde retreatment. J Endod. 2004; 30:627-633
Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature. Part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J. 2007; 40:921-939
Sjögren U, Hägglund B, Sundqvist G Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1990; 16:498-504
Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, Gröndahl K Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103:(1)114-119
, 3rd edn. : FGDP; 2013
Bandlish R, McDonald A, Setchell D. Assessment of the amount of remaining coronal dentine in root-treated teeth. J Dent. 2006; 34:699-708
McCabe P, Dummer M. Pulp canal obliteration: an endodontic diagnosis and treatment challenge. Int Endod J. 2012; 45:177-197
Souter NJ, Messer HH. Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique. J Endod. 2005; 31:(6)450-452
Falcon H, Richardson P, Shaw M Developing an index of restorative dental treatment need. Br Dent J. 2001; 9:479-486
Geneva1992
Kayser A. Shortened dental arches and oral function. J Oral Rehabil. 1981; 8:457-462
Witter D, van Palenstein Heldman W, Creugers N The shortened dental arch concept and its implications for oral health care. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999; 4:249-258
Graham R, Mihaylov S, Jepson N Determining ‘need’ for a Removable Partial Denture: a qualitative study of factors that influence dentist provision and patient use. Br Dent J. 2006; 200:155-158
Jepson N, Thomason J, Steele J. The influence of denture design on patient acceptance of partial dentures. Br Dent J. 1995; 178:296-300
Thomason J, Moynihan P, Steen N Time to survival for the restoration of the shortened lower dental arch. J Dent Res. 2007; 86:646-650
Jepson N, Allen P. Short and sticky options in the treatment of the partially dentate patient. Br Dent J. 1999; 187:646-652
Djemal S, Setchell D, King P Long-term survival characteristics of 832 resin-retained bridges and splints provided in a post-graduate teaching hospital between 1978 and 1993. J Oral Rehabil. 1999; 26:302-320
Chang H, Zidan O, Lee I Resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: a recall study. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65:778-781
Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87:503-509
Saunders W, Saunders E. Prevalence of periradicular periodontitis associated with crowned teeth in an adult Scottish subpopulation. Br Dent J. 1998; 185:(3)137-140
Zarb G, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64:(2)185-194
Pennington M, Vernazza C, Shackley P Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of root canal treatment using conventional approaches versus replacement with an implant. Int Endod J. 2009; 42:(10)874-883

Modern endodontic planning part 1: assessing complexity and predicting success

From Volume 42, Issue 7, September 2015 | Pages 599-611

Authors

Sarra Jawad

BDS, BSc, MFDS

Specialty Registrar/Honorary Clinical Lecturer in Restorative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by Sarra Jawad

Carly Taylor

BDS, MSc, MFGDP, FHEA

Clinical Lecturer/Honorary Specialty Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Manchester

Articles by Carly Taylor

Reza Vahid Roudsari

DDS, MFDS, MSc, PGCert(OMFS)

Clinical Lecturer/Honorary Specialty Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Manchester

Articles by Reza Vahid Roudsari

James Darcey

BDS, MSc, MDPH, MFGDP, MEndo, FDS(Rest Dent)

Consultant and Honorary Clinical Lecturer in Restorative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by James Darcey

Alison Qualtrough

BChD, MSc, PhD, FDS MRD, BChD, MSc, PhD, FDS, MRD (RCS Edin)

University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by Alison Qualtrough

Abstract

Following a diagnosis of irreversible pulpal disease, periapical disease or failed endodontic therapy, the options for the tooth are extraction or root canal treatment. There is increasing evidence that certain factors may allow the clinician to predict the likely outcome of root canal therapy (RCT) and thus better inform the patient of the possible success rates. Should the patient choose root canal treatment, the clinician must also be able to gauge the potential difficulties that may be encountered and consequently determine whether it is within their competency.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Assessing outcomes and complexity of care is an essential part of informed consent. Knowing when to refer is an essential component of best clinical practice.

Article

The primary goal of endodontics is to preserve the health of the pulp. When the pulp is irreversibly damaged, the goal is to prevent infection and periapical disease. When there is bacterial contamination of the root canal system, the clinician must be aware that success is more intimately tied to the decontamination of the root canal system. The intricate anatomy of the root canal system, the challenging oral environment and a plethora of patient factors can present challenges to achieving these goals. There are a multitude of reasons as to why root canal treatment may be difficult to achieve or more likely to fail. This ability to predict outcomes is critical to the decision to treat. All clinicians must be able to assess the prognosis of endodontic treatment, make a sensible decision about its complexity and decide whether it is within their capabilities if they are to obtain informed consent.

Dentists are often asked by patients, ‘Will it work?’ and it falls to the dentist to give an indication as to the projected success rate of their treatment. The definition of success has been a topic of much debate in the endodontic literature in recent years. The European Society of Endodontology definition of success is (Figure 1):1

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available