Search

Abstract Introduction A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to report combined and individual weighted pooled outcome rates for crown resection (CR) and root resection (RR) procedures. Methods Three electronic databases (PubMed [MEDLINE], Scopus, and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify human studies in 12 languages on CR (hemisection, trisection, and premolarization) and RR (amputations and RRs without removal of crown portions). Five peer-reviewed journals, references of relevant publications, and reviews were hand searched. Assessment by 3 independent reviewers was based on the following predefined Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design question: "For teeth in patients undergoing surgical therapy by CR versus RR, what is the expected probability of survival according to longitudinal studies with strictly defined outcome measurements and inclusion/exclusion criteria?" Clinical investigations with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Studies and level of evidence were appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Results Thirty-four articles were obtained for final analysis. Data could be extracted from 19 studies (CR and RR OVERALL: N = 2667 [19 studies], CR: n = 111 [3 studies], and RR: n = 1127 [9 studies]). A random effects model showed weighted mean survival rates of 85.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7–91.5) for CR and RR procedures OVERALL. Individual data showed weighted mean survival rates of 81.9% (95% CI, 72.0–88.8) for CR and 87.2% (95% CI, 71.7–94.8) for RR. There was no statistically significant difference between CR and RR (P =.89, odds ratio calculation) or between maxillary and mandibular molars (P =.81, Fisher exact test). Conclusions Overall, CR and RR procedures showed good outcome rates. Large-scale randomized controlled trials should be conducted to strengthen the evidence. Highlights • Thorough systematic review of 3 electronic databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO on the outcome of tooth and root resection from 1966–2018. • Meta-analysis of raw data from 19 studies, including a large study population, methodological assessment of studies, and grading of evidence using the GRADE approach. • A weighted mean survival rate of 85.6% was identified for crown and root resection procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of root-end preparation and filling material on endodontic surgery outcome. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the outcome of resin-based endodontic surgery (RES, the use of high-magnification preparation of a shallow and concave root-end cavity and bonded resin-based root-end filling material) versus endodontic microsurgery (EMS, the use of high-magnification ultrasonic root-end preparation and root-end filling with SuperEBA [Keystone Industries, Gibbstown, NJ], IRM [Dentsply Sirona, York, PA], mineral trioxide aggregate [MTA], or other calcium silicate cements). Methods An exhaustive literature search was conducted to identify prognostic studies on the outcome of root-end surgery. Human studies conducted from 1966 to the end of December 2016 in 5 different languages (ie, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish) were searched in 4 electronic databases (ie, Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library). Relevant review articles on the subject were scrutinized for cross-references. In addition, 5 dental and medical journals ( Journal of Endodontics ; International Endodontic Journal ; Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics ; Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; and International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ) were hand checked dating back to 1975. All abstracts were screened by 3 independent reviewers (H.B., M.K., and F.S.). Strict inclusion-exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant articles. Raw data were extracted from the full-text review of these selected articles independently by each of the 3 reviewers. In case of disagreement, an agreement was reached by discussion, and qualifying articles were assigned to group RES. For EMS, the same search strategy was performed for the time frame October 2009 to December 2016, whereas up to October 2009 the data were obtained from a previous systematic review with identical criteria and search strategy. Weighted pooled success rates and a relative risk assessment between RES and EMS were calculated. To make a comparison between groups, a random effects model was used. Results Sixty-eight articles were eligible for full-text review. Of these, per strict inclusion exclusion criteria, 14 studies qualified, 3 for RES ( n = 862) and 11 for EMS ( n = 915). Weighted pooled success rates for RES were 82.20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7965–0.8476) and 94.42% for EMS (95% CI, 0.9295–0.9590). This difference was statistically significant ( P < .0005). Conclusions The probability for success for EMS proved to be significantly greater than the probability for success for RES, providing best available evidence on the influence of cavity preparation with ultrasonic tips and/or SuperEBA (Keystone Industries, Gibbstown, NJ), IRM (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA), MTA, or silicate cements as root-end filling material instead of a shallow cavity preparation and placement of a resin-based material. Additional large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to assess other predictors of outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the assessment of healing after endodontic microsurgery using 2-dimensional (2D) periapical films versus 3-dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) imaging. Methods The healing of 51 teeth from 44 patients was evaluated using Molven's criteria (2D) and modified PENN 3D criteria. The absolute area (2D) and volume (3D) changes of apical lesions preoperatively and at follow-up were calculated by segmentation using OsiriX software (Pixmeo, Bernex, Switzerland) and ITK-Snap (free software). Results There was a significant difference between the mean preoperative lesion volumes of 95.34 mm 3 ( n = 51, standard deviation [SD] ±196.28 mm 3 ) versus 6.48 mm 3 ( n = 51, SD ±17.70 mm 3 ) at follow-up ( P < .05). The mean volume reduction was 83.7%. Preoperatively, mean lesion areas on periapical films were 13.55 mm 2 ( n = 51, SD ±18.80 mm 2 ) and 1.83 mm 2 ( n = 51, SD ±.68 mm 2 ) at follow-up ( P < .05). According to Molven's criteria, 40 teeth were classified as complete healing, 7 as incomplete healing, and 4 as uncertain healing. Based on the modified PENN 3D criteria, 33 teeth were classified as complete healing, 14 as limited healing, 1 as uncertain healing, and 3 as unsatisfactory healing. The variation in the distribution of the 2D and 3D healing classifications was significantly different ( P < .05). Periapical healing statuses incomplete healing or uncertain healing according to Molven's criteria could be clearly classified using 3D criteria. Conclusions CBCT analysis allowed a more precise evaluation of periapical lesions and healing of endodontic microsurgery than periapical films. Significant differences existed between the 2 methods. Over the observation period, the mean periapical lesion sizes significantly decreased in volume. Given the correct indications, the use of CBCT imaging may be a valuable tool for the evaluation of healing of endodontic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The purpose of this retrospective case series was to investigate the outcome of the revascularization procedure in necrotic immature teeth. Methods The residents and faculty members at the University of Pennsylvania endodontic department were invited to submit consecutive revascularization cases treated by them, irrespective of the outcome, during the time period of 2009 to 2012. Twenty-eight of 35 submitted necrotic immature teeth met the inclusion criteria. The treatment protocol included minimal instrumentation and irrigation with 3% sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA. Triple antibiotic paste was placed for a minimum of 21 days. After blood clot induction, either EndoSequence Bioceramic Putty (Brasseler, Savannah, GA) or mineral trioxide aggregate was placed below the cementoenamel junction, and composite was used as a final restoration. The follow-up period ranged from 7 to 72 months. The outcome was assessed as complete healing (the absence of clinical signs and symptoms, complete resolution of periradicular radiolucency, increase in the root dentin thickness/length, and apical closure), incomplete healing (the absence of clinical signs and symptoms, the periapical lesion completely healed without any signs of root maturation or thickening, the periapical lesion either reduced in size or unchanged with/without radiographic signs of increasing root dentin thickness/length, or apical closure), and failure (persistent clinical signs and symptoms and/or increased size of the periradicular lesion). Results Twenty-one of 28 cases (75%) healed completely, 3 cases (10.7%) failed during the observation period and needed further treatment, and 4 cases (14%) presented with incomplete healing. Conclusions Within the limitation of this study, the outcome of revascularization, wherein healing of periapical periodontitis and maturation of roots occurs, is fairly high, making it a viable treatment option in comparison with apexification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of root-end surgery. It identifies the effect of the surgical operating microscope or the endoscope on the prognosis of endodontic surgery. The specific outcomes of contemporary root-end surgery techniques with microinstruments but only loupes or no visualization aids (contemporary root-end surgery [CRS]) were compared with endodontic microsurgery using the same instruments and materials but with high-power magnification as provided by the surgical operating microscope or the endoscope (endodontic microsurgery [EMS]). The probabilities of success for a comparison of the 2 techniques were determined by means of a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. The influence of the tooth type on the outcome was investigated. Methods: A comprehensive literature search for longitudinal studies on the outcome of root-end surgery was conducted. Three electronic databases (ie, Medline, Embase, and PubMed) were searched to identify human studies from 1966 up to October 2009 in 5 different languages (ie, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish). Review articles and relevant articles were searched for cross-references. In addition, 5 dental and medical journals (ie, Journal of Endodontics, International Endodontic Journal, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) dating back to 1975 were hand searched. Following predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, all articles were screened by 3 independent reviewers (S.B.S., M.R.K., and F.C.S.). Relevant articles were obtained in full-text form, and raw data were extracted independently by each reviewer. After agreement among the reviewers, articles that qualified were assigned to group CRS. Articles belonging to group EMS had already been obtained for part 1 of this meta-analysis. Weighted pooled success rates and a relative risk assessment between CRS and EMS overall as well as for molars, premolars, and anteriors were calculated. A random-effects model was used for a comparison between the groups. Results: One hundred one articles were identified and obtained for final analysis. In total, 14 studies qualified according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2 being represented in both groups (7 for CRS [n = 610] and 9 for EMS [n = 699]). Weighted pooled success rates calculated from extracted raw data showed an 88% positive outcome for CRS (95% confidence interval, 0.8455–0.9164) and 94% for EMS (95% confidence interval, 0.8889–0.9816). This difference was statistically significant (P < .0005). Relative risk ratio analysis showed that the probability of success for EMS was 1.07 times the probability of success for CRS. Seven studies provided information on the individual tooth type (4 for CRS [n = 457] and 3 for EMS [n = 222]). The difference in probability of success between the groups was statistically significant for molars (n = 193, P = .011). No significant difference was found for the premolar or anterior group (premolar [n = 169], P = .404; anterior [n = 277], P = .715). Conclusions: The probability for success for EMS proved to be significantly greater than the probability for success for CRS, providing best available evidence on the influence of high-power magnification rendered by the dental operating microscope or the endoscope. Large-scale randomized clinical trials for statistically valid conclusions for current endodontic questions are needed to make informed decisions for clinical practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of root-end surgery. The specific outcome of traditional root-end surgery (TRS) versus endodontic microsurgery (EMS) and the probability of success for comparison of the 2 techniques were determined by means of meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Methods: An intensive search of the literature was conducted to identify longitudinal studies evaluating the outcome of root-end surgery. Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and PubMed) were searched to identify human studies from 1966 to October 2009 in 5 different languages (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish). Relevant articles and review papers were searched for cross-references. Five pertinent journals (Journal of Endodontics, International Endodontic Journal, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) were individually searched back to 1975. Three independent reviewers (S.S., M.K., and F.S.) assessed the abstracts of all articles that were found according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant articles were acquired in full-text form, and raw data were extracted independently by each reviewer. Qualifying papers were assigned to group TRS or group EMS. Weighted pooled success rates and relative risk assessment between TRS and EMS were calculated. A comparison between the groups was made by using a random effects model. Results: Ninety-eight articles were identified and obtained for final analysis. In total, 21 studies qualified (12 for TRS [n = 925] and 9 for EMS [n = 699]) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Weighted pooled success rates calculated from extracted raw data showed 59% positive outcome for TRS (95% confidence interval, 0.55–0.6308) and 94% for EMS (95% confidence interval, 0.8889–0.9816). This difference was statistically significant (P < .0005). The relative risk ratio showed that the probability of success for EMS was 1.58 times the probability of success for TRS. Conclusions: The use of microsurgical techniques is superior in achieving predictably high success rates for root-end surgery when compared with traditional techniques [Copyright &y& Elsevier]