An analysis of endodontic treatment with three nickel-titanium rotary root canal preparation techniques

Aim To investigate clinical results of root canal treatment performed with the aid of nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments. Summary A total of 179 patients underwent root canal treatment with either (A) Lightspeed, or (B) ProFile .04 or (C) ProFile .04 and .06 or GT rotary instruments to create tapered preparations. In groups A and B, laterally condensed gutta-percha and AH Plus were used. Canals in group C were obturated with System B, Obtura II and Roth's 801 sealer. Initial and recall radiographs were assessed using the periapical index (PAI). Outcomes were analysed using chi-square tests, event-time analyses and logistic regression models. Two hundred and thirty-three teeth were radiographically assessed after a mean interval of 25.4+/-11.8 months. Favourable outcome of treatment, defined as PAI86.7%. Logistic regression analysis and univariate analyses indicated that teeth with preoperative PAI scores >2 and retreated teeth had a significantly lower chance of healing compared with periapically healthy teeth and primary treatments, respectively. Preparation technique, length of fill and the type of sealer did not significantly affect healing rates. Key learning points Root canal treatment with NiTi root canal instrumentation systems renders favourable outcomes in more than 86% of the cases. Outcome is significantly affected by preoperative diagnoses but not by the specific choice of instrumentation system

Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature - Part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success

AIMS: The aims of this study were (i) to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on the outcome of primary (initial or first time) root canal treatment; (ii) to investigate the influence of some study characteristics on the estimated pooled success rates. METHODOLOGY: Longitudinal clinical studies investigating outcome of primary root canal treatment, published up to the end of 2002, were identified electronically (MEDLINE and Cochrane database 1966-2002 December, week 4). Four journals (International Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Endodontics Radiology and Dental Traumatology & Endodontics), bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles were hand-searched. Three reviewers (Y-LN, SR and KG) independently assessed, selected the studies based on specified inclusion criteria, and extracted the data onto a pre-designed proforma. The study inclusion criteria were: longitudinal clinical studies investigating root canal treatment outcome; only primary root canal treatment carried out on the teeth studied; sample size given; at least 6-month postoperative review; success based on clinical and/or radiographic criteria (strict, absence of apical radiolucency; loose, reduction in size of radiolucency); overall success rate given or could be calculated from the raw data. The findings by individual study were summarized and the pooled success rates by each potential influencing factor were calculated for this part of the study. RESULTS: Of the 119 articles identified, 63 studies published from 1922 to 2002, fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected for the review: six were randomized trials, seven were cohort studies and 48 were retrospective studies. The reported mean success rates ranged from 31% to 96% based on strict criteria or from 60% to 100% based on loose criteria, with substantial heterogeneity in the estimates of pooled success rates. Apart from the radiographic criteria of success, none of the other study characteristics could explain this heterogeneity. Twenty-four factors (patient and operative) had been investigated in various combinations in the studies reviewed. The influence of preoperative pulpal and periapical status of the teeth on treatment outcome were most frequently explored, but the influence of treatment technique was poorly investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated weighted pooled success rates of treatments completed at least 1 year prior to review, ranged between 68% and 85% when strict criteria were used. The reported success rates had not improved over the last four (or five) decades. The quality of evidence for treatment factors affecting primary root canal treatment outcome is sub-optimal; there was substantial variation in the study-designs. It would be desirable to standardize aspects of study-design, data recording and presentation format of outcome data in the much needed future outcome studies