Prevalence of persistent pain 3 to 5 years post primary root canal therapy and its impact on oral health-related quality of life: PEARL Network findings.

INTRODUCTION: The frequency of persistent pain 3-5 years after primary root canal therapy and its impact on the patient's perceived oral health-related quality of life was determined in a practice-based research network. METHODS: All patients presenting to participating network practices who received primary root canal therapy and restoration for a permanent tooth 3-5 years previously were invited to enroll. Persistent pain was defined as pain occurring spontaneously or elicited by percussion, palpation, or biting. The patient also completed an oral health-related quality of life questionnaire (Oral Health Impact Profile-14). RESULTS: Sixty-four network practices enrolled 1323 patients; 13 were ineligible, 12 did not receive a final restoration, and 41 were extracted, leaving 1257 for analysis. The average time to follow-up was 3.9 ± 0.6 years. Five percent (63/1257) of the patients reported persistent pain, whereas 24 of 63 (38%) exhibited periapical pathosis and/or root fracture (odontogenic pain). No obvious odontogenic cause for persistent pain was found for 39 of 63 (62%). Teeth treated by specialists had a greater frequency of persistent pain than teeth treated by generalists (9.3% vs 3.0%, respectively; P < .0001). Sex, age, tooth type, type of dentist, and arch were not found to be associated with nonodontogenic persistent pain; however, ethnicity and a preoperative diagnosis of pulpitis without periapical pathosis were. Patients reporting pain with percussion tended to experience pain with other stimuli that negatively impacted quality of life including oral function and psychological discomfort and disability. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a small percentage (3.1%) of patients experience persistent pain not attributable to odontogenic causes 3-5 years after primary root canal therapy that may adversely impact their quality of life.

Outcomes of implants and restorations placed in general dental practices: a retrospective study by the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network.

OBJECTIVES: The authors conducted a study to determine the types, outcomes, risk factors and esthetic assessment of implants and their restorations placed in the general practices of a practice-based research network. METHODS: All patients who visited network practices three to five years previously and underwent placement of an implant and restoration within the practice were invited to enroll. Practitioner-investigators (P-Is) recorded the status of the implant and restoration, characteristics of the implant site and restoration, presence of peri-implant pathology and an esthetic assessment by the P-I and patient. The P-Is classified implants as failures if the original implant was missing or had been replaced, the implant was mobile or elicited pain on percussion, there was overt clinical or radiographic evidence of pathology or excessive bone loss (> 0.2 millimeter per year after an initial bone loss of 2 mm). They classified restorations as failures if they had been replaced or if there was abutment or restoration fracture. RESULTS: The authors enrolled 922 implants and patients from 87 practices, with a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 4.2 (0.6) years. Of the 920 implants for which complete data records were available, 64 (7.0 percent) were classified as failures when excessive bone loss was excluded from the analysis. When excessive bone loss was included, 172 implants (18.7 percent) were classified as failures. According to the results of univariate analysis, a history of severe periodontitis, sites with preexisting inflammation or type IV bone, cases of immediate implant placement and placement in the incisor or canine region were associated with implant failure. According to the results of multivariate analysis, sites with preexisting inflammation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.17; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.41-3.34]) or type IV bone (OR = 1.99; 95 percent CI, 1.12-3.55) were associated with a greater risk of implant failure. Of the 908 surviving implants, 20 (2.2 percent) had restorations replaced or judged as needing to be replaced. The majority of P-Is and patients were satisfied with the esthetic outcomes for both the implant and restoration. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that implant survival and success rates in general dental practices may be lower than those reported in studies conducted in academic or specialty settings. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study, generated in the private general practice setting, add to the evidence base to facilitate implant treatment planning.

Restorative outcomes for endodontically treated teeth in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning network.

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to determine the outcome of and factors associated with success and failure of restorations in endodontically treated teeth in patients in practices participating in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network. METHODS: Practitioner-investigators (P-Is) invited the enrollment of all patients seeking care at participating practices who had undergone primary endodontic therapy and restoration in a permanent tooth three to five years earlier. P-Is classified endodontically reated teeth as restorative failures if the restoration was replaced, the restoration needed replacement or the tooth was cracked or fractured. RESULTS: P-Is from 64 practices enrolled in the study 1,298 eligible patients who had endodontically treated teeth that had been restored. The mean (standard deviation) time to follow-up was 3.9 (0.6) years. Of the 1,298 enrolled teeth, P-Is classified 181 (13.9 percent; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 12.1-15.8 percent) as restorative failures: 44 (3.4 percent) due to cracks or fractures, 57 (4.4 percent) due to replacement of the original restoration for reasons other than fracture and 80 (6.2 percent) due to need for a new restoration. When analyzing the results by means of multivariate logistic regression, the authors found a greater risk of restorative failure to be associated with canines or incisors and premolars (P = .04), intracoronal restorations (P < .01), lack of preoperative proximal contacts (P < .01), presence of periodontal connective-tissue attachment loss (P < .01), younger age (P = .01), Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (P = .04) and endodontic therapy not having been performed by a specialist (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that molars (as opposed to other types of teeth), full-coverage restorations, preoperative proximal contacts, good periodontal health, non-Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, endodontic therapy performed by a specialist and older patient age are associated with restorative success for endodontically treated teeth in general practice. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results contribute to the clinical evidence base to help guide practitioners when planning the restoration of endodontically treated teeth.

Outcomes of endodontic therapy in general practice: a study by the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning Network.

BACKGROUND: The authors undertook a study involving members of a dental practice-based research network to determine the outcome and factors associated with success and failure of endodontic therapy. METHODS: Members in participating practices (practitioner-investigators [P-Is]) invited the enrollment of all patients seeking treatment in the practice who had undergone primary endodontic therapy and restoration in a permanent tooth three to five years previously. If a patient had more than one tooth so treated, the P-I selected as the index tooth the tooth treated earliest during the three- to five-year period. The authors excluded from the study any teeth that served as abutments for removable partial dentures or overdentures, third molars and teeth undergoing active orthodontic endodontic therapy. The primary outcome was retention of the index tooth. Secondary outcomes, in addition to extraction, that defined failure included clinical or radiographic evidence (or both) of periapical pathosis, endodontic retreatment or pain on percussion. RESULTS: P-Is in 64 network practices enrolled 1,312 patients with a mean (standard deviation) time to follow-up of 3.9 (0.6) years. During that period, 3.3 percent of the index teeth were extracted, 2.2 percent underwent retreatment, 3.6 percent had pain on percussion and 10.6 percent had periapical radiolucencies for a combined failure rate of 19.1 percent. The presence of preoperative periapical radiolucency with a diagnosis of either irreversible pulpitis or necrotic pulp was associated with failure after multivariate analysis, as were multiple canals, male sex and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that failure rates for endodontic therapy are higher than previously reported in general practices, according to results of studies based on dental insurance claims data. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study can help guide the practitioner in deciding the most appropriate course of therapy for teeth with irreversible pulpitis, necrotic pulp or periapical periodontitis.

Level of oral health impacts among patients participating in PEARL: a dental practice-based research network.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether participants of a dental practice-based research network (PBRN) differ in their level of oral health impact as measured by the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire. METHODS: A total of 2410 patients contributed 2432 OHIP measurements (median age = 43 years; interquartile range = 28) were enrolled in four dental studies. All participants completed the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) during a baseline visit. The main outcome of this study was the level of oral health impact, defined as follows: no impact ('Never' reported on all items); low ('Occasionally' or 'Hardly ever' as the greatest frequency score reported on any item); and high ('Fairly often' or 'Very often' as the greatest frequency reported on any item). Polychotomous logistic regression was used to develop a predictive model for the level of oral health impact considering the following predictors: patient's age, gender, race, practice location, type of dentist, and number of years the enrolling dentist has been practicing. RESULTS: A high level of oral health impacts was reported in 8% of the sample; almost a third (29%) of the sample reported a low level of impacts, and 63% had no oral health impacts. The prevalence of impacts differed significantly across protocols (P < 0.001). Women were more likely to be in the high oral impact group than in the no impact group compared to men (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.06-1.99). African Americans were more likely to report high oral impacts when compared to other racial/ethnic groups (OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.26-3.55). Protective effects for being in the high or in the low-impact groups were observed among patients enrolled by a solo practice (P < 0.001) or by more experienced dentists (P = 0.01). A small but highly significant statistical association was obtained for patient age (P < 0.001). In the multivariate model, patient's age, practice size, and gender were found to jointly be significant predictors of oral health impact level. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' subjective report of oral health impact in the clinical setting is of importance for their health. In the context of a dental PBRN, the report of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was different across four dental studies. The observed findings validate the differential impact that oral health has on the patients' perception of OHRQoL particularly among specific groups. Similar investigations to elucidate the factors associated with patient's report of quality of life are warranted.