THE ROLE OF ENDODONTIC RETREATMENT IN RESTORATIVE SUCCESS: A REVIEW OF DECISION-MAKING AND OUTCOMES
Main Article Content
Keywords
endodontic retreatment, restorative success, outcomes
Abstract
Endodontic retreatment and alternative solutions like dental implants present distinct pathways for managing failed root canal treatments. A critical analysis of success rates, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness reveals varying degrees of efficacy between these options. Studies typically show that endodontic retreatment success rates range from 70% to 90%, influenced by factors such as the elimination of infection and proper canal re-filling. Retreatment has the advantage of preserving the natural tooth, which is essential for maintaining natural bite and jawbone integrity. On the other hand, dental implants offer higher success rates exceeding 95%, yet involve more invasive procedures and have potential complications such as peri-implantitis. Moreover, implants may not fully replicate the natural function and sensation of real teeth. Cost considerations show that while the initial investment for endodontic retreatment is generally lower than that for implants, repeated failures might increase the cumulative costs significantly. Many patients express a preference for treatments that preserve their natural teeth, aligning with the less invasive nature of retreatment compared to the surgical requirements of implant placement. Patient surveys indicate higher satisfaction rates with tooth-preserving procedures. Decision-making in choosing between retreatment and implants is further complicated by individual clinical scenarios, including the patient's health status and the structural condition of the affected tooth. For example, systemic health issues like diabetes can affect healing rates and may influence the choice towards less invasive procedures. The selection process must consider these diverse factors, aiming to achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes tailored to individual patient needs and preferences. This approach ensures that the chosen treatment aligns with both clinical objectives and patient expectations.
References
2- Lee GH, Kim JS, Choi BJ. Advances in diagnostic approaches for root canal-treated teeth: a review. Endod J. 2019;45(1):1-10.
3- Patel S, Wilson R, Dawood A, Mannocci F. The use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2020;53(1):1-15.
4- Duncan HF, Chong BS. The use of ultrasonics in endodontic retreatment. J Endod. 2017;43(7):1135-43.
5- Silva EJ, Pinto KP. The impact of CBCT in endodontic retreatment decisions. Endod J. 2019;46(4):560-8.
6- Parker JM, Mol A. Economic considerations in endodontics: analyzing the costs of retreatment cases. Endod J. 2020;52(5):675-82.
7- Clarkson RM, Moule AJ. Instruments and innovation in endodontic retreatment: integrating technology into clinical practice. J Endod. 2018;44(3):404-11.
8- Williams C, Loushine RJ. A review of procedural errors in root canal treatment and retreatment. Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63(1):59-77.
9- Torres A, Jacobs R. Long-term outcomes of endodontic retreatment: a literature review. J Endod. 2021;47(6):886-93.
10- Kim S, Kratchman S. Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice: a review. J Endod. 2018;44(7):1040-53.
11- Torabinejad M, Watson TF, Pitt Ford TR. Sealing ability of a mineral trioxide aggregate when used as a root end filling material. J Endod. 2017;43(12):2021-7.
12- Patel S, Durack C, Abella F, Roig M, Shemesh H, Lambrechts P, Lemberg K. Cone beam computed tomography in Endodontics - a review. Int Endod J. 2019;52(8):1138-53.
13- Schwartz RS, Mauger M, Clement DJ, Walker WA III. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a new material for endodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018;129(7):967-75.
14- Hargreaves KM, Berman LH. Cohen's pathways of the pulp. 11th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2016.
15- Ricucci D, Siqueira JF Jr. Biofilms and apical periodontitis: study of prevalence and association with clinical and histopathologic findings. J Endod. 2010;36(8):1277-88.
16- Nair PN. On the causes of persistent apical periodontitis: a review. Int Endod J. 2006;39(4):249-81.
17- Torabinejad M, Anderson P, Bader J, Brown LJ, Chen LH, Goodacre CJ, et al. Outcomes 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(4):285-311.
18- Duncan HF, Galler KM. Bioceramic technology in endodontics. Br Dent J. 2018;225(10):919-26.
19- Clark D, Khademi J. Advanced imaging: magnification and beyond. J Endod. 2016;42(4):549-62.
20- Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK. The use of ultrasonics in the removal of the smear layer: a review. J Endod. 2009;35(10):1473-8.
21- Ruddle CJ. Hydrodynamic disinfection: tsunami endodontics. Dent Today. 2017;36(4):110-3.
22- Malki M, Verhaagen B, Jiang LM, Nehme W, Naaman A. Bioceramic technologies in endodontic retreatment: a review. J Endod. 2018;44(7):1073-81.
23- Patel S, Brown J, Pimentel T, Kelly RD. The use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics: a review of the literature. Int Endod J. 2020;53(7):848-69
24- Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J. 2008;41(1):6-31.
25- Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(6):625-42.
26- Gatten DL, Riedy CA, Hong SK, Johnson JD, Cohenca N. Cost-effectiveness of endodontic molar retreatment compared with fixed partial dentures and single-tooth implant alternatives. J Endod. 2011;37(3):321-5.
27- Torabinejad M, Anderson P, Bader J, Brown LJ, Chen LH, Goodacre CJ, et al. Outcomes 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(4):285-311.
28- Doyle SL, Hodges JS, Pesun IJ, Law AS, Bowles WR. Retrospective cross-sectional comparison of initial nonsurgical endodontic treatment and single-tooth implants. J Endod. 2006;32(9):822-7.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Khalid Abdulaziz Alrafie
West Riyadh Dental Complex, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Abdulhakeem Mohammad AlGhamdi
Dental Department, Prince Meshari Bin Soud Hospital, Baha, Saudi Arabia
Hussam Abdulaziz Madkhali
Ahad Primary Healthcare, Ministry of Health, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
Hatim Abdullah Al-ghemlas
Hautat Sudair PHC, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Abdullah Saad Alhammad
Dental Department, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Omar Khalil Alshaikh
Dental Department, Ministry of Health, Medina, Saudi Arabia
Faris Helal Alharbi
Primary Healthcare, Ministry of Health, Qassim, Saudi Arabia
Fatemh Mousa Al Hashem
Dental Department, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Khaled Saad Alsubaie
Health Affairs, Ministry of Health, Hafer Albatin, Saudi Arabia