Treatment Planning for Implants Versus Root Canal Therapy: A Contemporary Dilemma

Implant or Tooth?-A Prospective Clinical Study on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients with "Unrestorable" Teeth

In cases of severely compromised teeth, dental practitioners are confronted with the therapeutic decision of whether to restore a tooth or replace it with an implant. Comparative scientific evidence on patient perception of both treatment approaches is scarce. The subject of this prospective clinical study was to compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between two treatment groups: restoration of severely destroyed teeth after orthodontic extrusion (FOE) versus tooth extraction and implant-supported single crown restoration (ISC). A self-selected trial was performed with 21 patients per group. OHRQoL was assessed with the aid of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-G49) at different time intervals: before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), after restoration (T3) and at recall (T4). Overall, OHIP scores improved from baseline to follow-up for both concepts with no significant differences between groups. There were no significant differences in subscales between FOE and ISC at T1, T3 and T4. In terms of functional limitations (p = 0.003) and physical disability (p = 0.021), patients in the FOE group temporarily exhibited lower OHRQoL at T2 in comparison to the ISC group. However, at baseline, after final restoration and at recall, the study demonstrates the same level of OHRQoL for both treatment concepts.

A Scoping Review of 4 Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies-Part 2: Outcome Measures

INTRODUCTION

Inconsistencies in the definitions of endodontic outcome terminology jeopardize evaluations of proposed interventions and patient care quality. This scoping review aimed to provide groundwork to develop a set of basic outcomes in endodontics.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 with patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment, retreatment, or apexification. Abstracted data on outcome assessment methods, assessors, and domains were reported after univariate and bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment outcomes were evaluated radiographically (88%) or clinically (73%). Although 2-dimensional radiography exceeded 3-dimensional radiography, the use of the latter has increased since 2010, mostly for nonsurgical retreatments. Of 19 identified outcomes, 5 were most frequent: success (168 studies, 40%), radiographic healing (128 studies, 30%), survival (of an asymptomatic tooth [48 studies, 12%] or of a procedure code in administrative databases [31 studies, 7%]), pain assessment (14 studies, 3%), and quality of life (11 studies, 3%). Clinician-centered outcomes have been most frequently studied since the 1980s (71%), in academic settings (76%), and using a prospective design (45%). Patient-centered outcomes were reported in 19% of studies before 2010 and 30% since 2010. They were more common among retrospective studies (49%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-centered outcome measures are lacking in endodontic studies. The state of available research can provide a baseline for the development of a core outcome set in endodontics, which should represent the important patient-centered outcomes in conjunction with well-validated clinician-centered outcomes.

The Effect of Crown Lengthening on the Outcome of Endodontically Treated Posterior Teeth: 10-year Survival Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a crown lengthening (CL) procedure and the crown-root ratio after CL on the long-term survival of endodontically treated teeth (ETT).

METHODS

Permanent posterior teeth with opposing dentition that had received adequate nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) and a full-coverage crown between January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2016 were included in this retrospective study. The data collected included dates of the NSRCT, time of extraction if extracted, age, sex, location, the crown-root ratio after CL, and the presence of a lesion. All included ETT were divided into 2 groups: RESULTS: 5-year survival rates of ETT in the control and CL groups were 88.6% and 82.2%, respectively (P > .05). The 10-year survival rates of ETT in the control and CL groups were 74.5% and 51%, respectively (P < .05). ETT that received the CL procedure after NSRCT were almost 2.3 times more likely to get extracted compared with ETT that did not need the CL procedure at the 10-year follow-up (hazard ratio = 2.29, P < .05). Also, ETT with an inadequate crown-root ratio (1:1) after CL showed the lowest survival rate (40%) compared with ETT with an adequate crown-root ratio (<1:1).

CONCLUSIONS

A crown-root ratio of 1:1 after osseous CL may affect the long-term survival of ETT. Despite the promising survival rate of ETT with an adequate crown-root ratio after CL, the long-term survival of NSRCT with an inadequate crown-root ratio (1:1) should be considered in the treatment planning phase. Also, it is worth mentioning that the results of the present study should be evaluated in future prospective studies.

Implant and root canal treatment: Survival rates and factors associated with treatment outcome

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the survival rates of implant and root canal treatment as well as to investigate the effect of patient and tooth related variables on the treatment outcome in a large-scale population-based study.

METHODS

Dental records of patients who received root canal treatment and implant therapy were retrieved from the electronic records of the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. Demographic characteristics, dental insurance status, socioeconomic status as well as medical history and tobacco use were recorded. The treatment outcome was included as a binary variable (survival/failure).

RESULTS

A total of 13,434 records of patients who had implant (33.6%) or root canal therapy (66.4%) were included. The survival rate analysis and Kaplan-Meier table revealed the majority of the implants were removed within the first year (58.8%), while only 35.2% of the root canal treatments failed in the same time period. The overall survival rate was significantly (p < 0.001) higher for implant therapy (98.3%) compared to root canal treatment (72.7%). A statistically significant association was found between treatment (p <n0.001), age (p < 0.001) and anxiety (p = 0.004) with treatment outcome CONCLUSIONS: Implant therapy exhibited significantly lower failures when compared to root canal treatment, but the selection of either treatment should be based on multiple factors. Higher age and anxiety were also significantly associated with root canal and implant treatment failure.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians are in an increased dilemma that affects the decision-making process due to the inadequate evidence in regards to the question of retention or extraction of a tooth in the natural dentition. This study demonstrated that both root canal and implant treatments are sound options with high survival rates; however, root canal therapy exhibited a significantly higher failure rate.

Should retention of a tooth be an important goal of dentistry? How do you decide whether to retain and restore a tooth requiring endodontic treatment or to extract and if possible replace the tooth?

Whether a questionable tooth should be treated endodontically or extracted, is still a dilemma clinicians encounter every day. With advances in technology such as implantology, deciding whether or not to save a tooth is still not clear. Local site-specific factors and patient-related factors that may affect the longevity of a particular tooth should be considered in preparing the treatment plan. Long-term success rates for root canal therapy and implant-supported crowns demonstrate similar outcomes. A choice between these alone is not sufficient in the decision-making process. Only following a systematic evaluation of the reasons for and against tooth retention as directed by each individual case, can the best option be decided.

Long-term survival rate of teeth receiving multidisciplinary endodontic, periodontal and prosthodontic treatments

Deciding whether to replace or preserve a compromised tooth, even with emerging trends in implant dentistry, is still a common dilemma for practitioners. This study sought to determine the 3- to more than 10-year survival rate of teeth that had undergone endodontic, periodontal and prosthodontic treatments. A total of 245 teeth in 87 patients were clinically and radiographically evaluated. All the teeth had received crown lengthening surgery by a single periodontist. Root canal therapy and prosthodontic procedures were rendered either by specialists or by experienced general dentists. Numbers of lost teeth were recorded and the criteria for hopeless teeth were defined. Survival rate was determined using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Clinical indices including pocket depth (PD), bleeding index (BI), C/R ratio, position of the restoration margin relative to the gingival margin (RM-GM) and the presence of intra-canal post were compared between different survival groups (<3, 3-5, 5-10 and >10 years) using one-way analysis of variance (anova). Potential predictors of failure were determined using the Cox regression model. The mean ± s.d. of 3-, 5-, 10- and 13-year survival rates was 98 ± 1%, 96 ± 1·6%, 83·1 ± 4·5% and 51·9 ± 14·5%, respectively. The mean PD (P < 0·013), as well as C/R ratio in the mesial (P = 0·003) and distal (P = 0·007) surfaces, was significantly higher in the >10-year-survived teeth. Bleeding index and RM-GM showed no significant differences between the groups. C/R ratio and RM-GM position appeared to be the major determinants of tooth loss. The long-term survival rate of multidisciplinary-treated teeth was 83-98% in this specific sample.

Strategic considerations in treatment planning: deciding when to treat, extract, or replace a questionable tooth

Prosthodontists face the difficult task of judging the influence and significance of multiple risk factors of periodontal, endodontic, or prosthetic origin that can affect the prognosis of an abutment tooth. The purpose of this review is to summarize the critical factors involved in deciding whether a questionable tooth should be treated and maintained, or extracted and possibly replaced by dental implants. A MEDLINE (PubMed) search of the English, peer-reviewed literature published from 1966 to August 2009 was conducted using different keyword combinations including treatment planning, in addition to decision making, periodontics, endodontics, dental implants, or prosthodontics. Further, bibliographies of all relevant papers and previous review articles were hand searched. Tooth maintenance and the acceptance of risks are suitable when: the tooth is not extensively diseased; the tooth has a high strategic value, particularly in patients with implant contraindications; the tooth is located in an intact arch; and the preservation of gingival structures is paramount. When complete-mouth restorations are planned, the strategic use of dental implants and smaller units (short-span fixed dental prostheses), either tooth- or implant-supported, as well as natural tooth abutments with good prognoses for long-span FDPs, is recommended to minimize the risk of failure of the entire restoration.

Case assessment and treatment planning: what governs your decision to treat, refer or replace a tooth that potentially requires endodontic treatment?

Several factors determine whether a tooth will require treatment by a general dentist, treatment by an endodontist or whether prosthodontic care is necessary after the tooth in question is extracted. This paper will present and discuss those factors, which govern the decisions made by the general dentist, and the resultant treatment options ranging from conservative endodontic therapy to the extraction of the offending tooth and its prosthodontic replacement. The impact of prognosis during endodontic therapy will also be discussed.

Retrospective Cross Sectional Comparison of Initial Nonsurgical Endodontic Treatment and Single-Tooth Implants

Initial root canal treatment and the replacement of a single tooth with implants are both viable treatment options, but various success rates have been reported for each treatment modality. This study compared 196 implant restorations and 196 matched initial nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) teeth in patients for four possible outcomes- success, survival, survival with subsequent treatment intervention and failure. Cross classifications/tabulations were analyzed using Pearson's chi(2) test for association of the two classifications (endo vs. implant and outcome). Polytomous regression with likelihood ratio tests were used in testing association with tooth location and outcome. Outcomes were as follows for implants and NSRCT outcomes, respectively: success 73.5% and 82.1%; survival with no intervention 2.6% and 8.2%; survival with intervention 17.9% and 3.6%; and failure 6.1% and 6.1%. Location of the restoration in the mouth did not affect outcome. This study suggests that restored endodontically treated teeth and single-tooth implant restorations have similar failure rates, although the implant group showed a longer average and median time to function and a higher incidence of postoperative complications requiring subsequent treatment intervention.