Impact of three radiographic methods in the outcome of nonsurgical endodontic treatment: a five-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: The periapical film radiograph (PFR) and digital periapical radiograph (DPR) techniques have some limitations in the visualization of small periapical lesions (PLs) when compared with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). However, the evidence supporting their effectiveness is very limited. This retrospective longitudinal cohort study evaluated the outcome of endodontic treatments measured/monitored by PFR, DPR, and CBCT during a 5-year follow-up and also determined the prognostic factors that influenced treatment success. METHODS: A total of 132 teeth (208 roots) with vital pulps received endodontic treatment. The periapical indexes with scores ≥2 for PFR and DPR and ≥1 for CBCT indicated the presence of PLs. Prognostic factors were determined by bivariate and multivariate analyses. Statistical significance was defined at a P level <.05. RESULTS: CBCT detected a higher number of PLs (18.7%, n = 39 roots), followed by DPR (7.7%, n = 16 roots) and PFR (5.7%, n = 12 roots). Likewise, CBCT was more sensitive than PFR and DPR in detecting deficiencies in extension and density of the root canal filling (P ≤ .001). Of the 17 prognostic factors evaluated, 4 were significantly associated with poor outcome to the treatment (P < .05): root canal curvature, disinfection of gutta-percha, presence of missed canals, and the quality of definitive coronal restoration. CONCLUSIONS: The success outcome of endodontic treatment after 5 years in teeth with vital pulps varied with each radiographic method: 94.3%/PFR, 92.3%/DPR, and 81.3%/CBCT.

Is endodontic treatment performed under general anaesthesia technically acceptable?

OBJECTIVES: Undertaking endodontic treatment under general anaesthesia (GA) is often described as difficult and hazardous, but no study reports on safe and efficacious conditions for endodontic treatment under GA. This study aims to evaluate whether compromises made for the endodontic treatment of permanent teeth under GA are acceptable. It describes the quality of endodontic treatment undertaken in two series of consecutive patients treated either under GA or local anaesthesia (LA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-operative data sheets and periapical radiographs were collected for 255 permanent teeth treated under GA during a 4-year period (GA group, 125 patients with special needs) and for 246 permanent teeth treated under local anaesthesia over 7 months (LA group, 180 healthy patients). The radiographic criteria for quality of endodontic treatment (RCQET) were considered satisfactory when (1) the root filling was within 2 mm of the apex; (2) the filling displayed no voids or defects; and (3) all the visible canals had been obturated. The type of tooth, pulpal status and periapical status were considered independent variables for RCQET. RESULTS: The proportion of satisfactory RCQET reached 63% in both groups and differed by type of tooth, being significantly lower for molars than for other teeth. CONCLUSION: From a technical point of view, compromises made for the endodontic treatment of permanent teeth under GA are acceptable. Further studies should be conducted to evaluate the long-term success of endodontic treatment performed under GA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports the feasibility of endodontic treatment for patients treated under GA.

Clinical evaluation of a chemomechanical method for caries removal in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to make a clinical comparison of the chemomechanical method for caries removal and the conventional rotary instruments technique when used in children and adolescents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study comprised 120 patients aged 3-17 years randomized into two groups: caries were removed chemomechanically in 60 patients and 60 patients received conventional treatment with rotary instruments. The outcome variables were: clinically complete caries removal, pain during caries removal, need for local anesthesia, treatment time, preferences of patients, and clinical success of the restorations during the 12-month evaluation period. RESULTS: Complete caries removal was achieved in 92% of chemomechanically treated teeth and in all teeth treated with rotary instruments (p>0.05). The chemomechanical method significantly reduced the need for local anesthesia (p<0.001). Eighty-five percent of patients treated with Carisolv and 47% treated with rotary instruments were satisfied with the treatment (p<0.05). The mean time for chemomechanical caries removal was 11.2 ± 3.3 min and 5.2 ± 2.8 min for caries removal with rotary instruments (p<0.001). At the end of the 12-month evaluation period, there was no observed influence of the caries removal method on the survival of the restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The chemomechanical caries removal technique is an adequate alternative to the conventional rotary instruments method and is advantageous in pediatric dentistry.