Does the Papilla Preservation Flap Technique Induce Soft Tissue Modifications over Time in Endodontic Surgery Procedures?

Factors that influence the outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment

Surgical endodontic treatment encompasses a broad spectrum of procedures, amongst which root-end cavity preparation and filling, retrograde root canal treatment and through-and-through endodontic surgery, may be classified under the umbrella term 'Root-end surgery'. This narrative review considers the available data on periapical healing, soft tissue healing, tooth survival and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), following root-end surgery and the factors that affect its outcomes. The pooled periapical healed rate for the studies published up to 2021 was 69% (95% CI: 65%, 73%) but increased to 76% (95% CI: 66%, 86%) when only data from the 2020's studies were analysed. The prognostic factors consistently reported for periapical healing have included: pre-operative periapical lesion with complete loss of buccal plate, quality of root-end preparation, remaining thickness of apical root dentine and restorative status. Soft tissue healing of the reflected flap was found to have a positive association with periapical healing. The survival rates following root-end surgery range from 48% to 93%, with failure of periapical healing associated with root and crown fracture, being the predominant reasons for tooth extraction. The factors influencing impact of root-end surgery on patients' quality of life could not be adequately evaluated due to design flaws in the available studies. In conclusion, if root canal treatment failure due to leakage through cracks, fractures or restoration margin are excluded, the remaining cases may represent localized residual infection and inflammation at the periapex that should be amenable to predictable management with the aid of modern root-end surgery.

Effect of full sulcular versus papilla-sparing flap on periodontal parameters in periradicular surgeries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Access to apical root canal system is gained after flap elevation using various incision techniques. Soft-tissue healing after periradicular surgery may include gingival recession, papilla recession, changes in probing depth, and clinical attachment loss.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of full sulcular flap design versus papilla-sparing flap design on the periodontal parameters in periradicular surgeries.

Materials and Methods:

It was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic and manual searches were conducted in multiple databases including PubMed, Dental and Oral Sciences, Cochrane, and CINAHL Plus until May 2019. Initial search yielded 2575 studies with 5 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes assessed were gingival recession and change in the papilla height. The secondary outcomes evaluated were probing depth, clinical attachment loss, postoperative pain, bleeding, and discomfort. Random-effects model was employed for computation of effect size, and forest plots were made.

Results:

Out of the five articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria, three were randomized control trials and two were nonrandom trials. No significant differences were found in the gingival recession (P = 0.79), papilla height (P = 0.55), gingival bleeding, and plaque indices. Statistically significant differences in probing depth (P = 0.006) and clinical attachment loss (P = 0.0004) were observed for the two flap designs in probing depth (P = 0.006) and clinical attachment loss (P = 0.0004).

Conclusions:

The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed that probing depth and attachment loss are affected by the choice of flap design. On the other hand, gingival recession and papilla height are not influenced by the type of incision. However, finding of the present review may change if more studies on this topic will be included in the future. Therefore, more clinical trials with long-term follow-ups are needed.

Influence of incision on periodontal parameters after apical surgery: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to determine the effect of the different incision designs used in apical surgery on periodontal parameters.

METHODS

An electronic search in Cochrane Library, Pubmed (MEDLINE), and Scopus was conducted on April 2020. Two independent investigators included clinical trials and prospective cohort studies comparing the influence of different incision designs used in apical surgery on gingival recession, periodontal probing depth, and clinical attachment level. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed in order to meta-analyze the direct and the indirect comparisons among the incision designs.

RESULTS

Six articles were included for the qualitative and the quantitative syntheses, involving a total of 401 teeth (372 patients). The pairwise meta-analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences between the incision designs in any of the outcomes evaluated. However, to reduce the amount of buccal gingival recession, the papilla base incision presented the highest probabilities of being ranked the most effective incision (85.7%), followed by submarginal incision (50.0%) and intrasulcular incision (14.3%).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the incision design used, the periodontal parameters did not statistically differ after apical surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Periodontal parameters did not significantly change despite the incision used in apical surgery. However, based on the results of the present review, the papilla base incision seems to be the best option to reduce the amount of buccal gingival recession.

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions

BACKGROUND

When primary root canal therapy fails, periapical lesions can be retreated with or without surgery. Root canal retreatment is a non-surgical procedure that involves removal of root canal filling materials from the tooth, followed by cleaning, shaping and obturating of the canals. Root-end resection is a surgical procedure that involves exposure of the periapical lesion through an osteotomy, surgical removal of the lesion, removal of part of the root-end tip, disinfection and, commonly, retrograde sealing or filling of the apical portion of the remaining root canal. This review updates one published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of surgical and non-surgical therapy for retreatment of teeth with apical periodontitis.To assess effects of surgical root-end resection under various conditions, for example, when different materials, devices or techniques are used.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 10 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 February 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 February 2016). We searched the US National Registry of Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (to 10 February 2016). We placed no restrictions regarding language and publication date. We handsearched the reference lists of the studies retrieved and key journals in the field of endodontics.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with periapical pathosis. Studies could compare surgery versus non-surgical treatment or could compare different types of surgery. Outcome measures were healing of the periapical lesion assessed after one-year follow-up or longer; postoperative pain and discomfort; and adverse effects such as tooth loss, mobility, soft tissue recession, abscess, infection, neurological damage or loss of root sealing material evaluated through radiographs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We combined results of trials assessing comparable outcomes using the fixed-effect model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used generic inverse variance for split-mouth studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs. Two trials at high risk of bias assessed surgery versus a non-surgical approach: root-end resection with root-end filling versus root canal retreatment. The other 18 trials evaluated different surgical protocols: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) versus periapical radiography for preoperative assessment (one study at high risk of bias); antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo (one study at unclear risk); different magnification devices (loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) (two studies at high risk); types of incision (papilla base incision, sulcular incision) (one study at high risk and one at unclear risk); ultrasonic devices versus handpiece burs (one study at high risk); types of root-end filling material (glass ionomer cement, amalgam, intermediate restorative material (IRM), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), gutta-percha (GP), super-ethoxy benzoic acid (EBA)) (five studies at high risk of bias, one at unclear risk and one at low risk); grafting versus no grafting (three studies at high risk and one at unclear risk); and low energy level laser therapy versus placebo (irradiation without laser activation) versus control (no use of the laser device) (one study at high risk).There was no clear evidence of superiority of the surgical or non-surgical approach for healing at one-year follow-up (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.35; two RCTs, 126 participants) or at four- or 10-year follow-up (one RCT, 82 to 95 participants), although the evidence is very low quality. More participants in the surgically treated group reported pain in the first week after treatment (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.05 to 5.43; one RCT, 87 participants; low quality evidence).In terms of surgical protocols, there was some inconclusive evidence that ultrasonic devices for root-end preparation may improve healing one year after retreatment, when compared with the traditional bur (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; one RCT, 290 participants; low quality evidence).There was evidence of better healing when root-ends were filled with MTA than when they were treated by smoothing of orthograde GP root filling, after one-year follow-up (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; one RCT, 46 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that using CBCT rather than radiography for preoperative evaluation was advantageous for healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.47; one RCT, 39 participants; very low quality evidence), nor that any magnification device affected healing more than any other (loupes versus endoscope at one year: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; microscope versus endoscope at two years: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.15; one RCT, 70 participants, low quality evidence).There was no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced incidence of postoperative infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.64; one RCT, 250 participants; low quality evidence).There was some evidence that using a papilla base incision (PBI) may be beneficial for preservation of the interdental papilla compared with complete papilla mobilisation (one RCT (split-mouth), 12 participants/24 sites; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of less pain in the PBI group at day 1 post surgery (one RCT, 38 participants; very low quality evidence).There was evidence that adjunctive use of a gel of plasma rich in growth factors reduced postoperative pain compared with no grafting (measured on visual analogue scale: one day postoperative MD -51.60 mm, 95% CI -63.43 to -39.77; one RCT, 36 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that use of low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) prevented postoperative pain (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence does not provide clinicians with reliable guidelines for treating periapical lesions. Further research is necessary to understand the effects of surgical versus non-surgical approaches, and to determine which surgical procedures provide the best results for periapical lesion healing and postoperative quality of life. Future studies should use standardised techniques and success criteria, precisely defined outcomes and the participant as the unit of analysis.