A Retrospective Comparison of Outcome in Patients Who Received Both Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment and Single-tooth Implants

Survival, complications, and patient-reported outcomes of endodontically treated teeth versus dental implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Decision making for compromised teeth involving the choice between endodontic treatment and tooth extraction followed by an implant-supported prosthesis is challenging. However, systematic reviews examining studies using the same patients or clinical settings to provide conclusive evidence regarding the best approach are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the survival rate, complications, failure, and patient-reported outcomes of endodontically treated teeth and implant-supported prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After the protocol had been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to July 2023 with no language restriction. A manual literature search was performed. The review protocol was based on the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design (PICOS) criteria and included all observational and experimental human studies that directly compared the survival, complications, and patient-reported outcomes of teeth with pulpal and periapical disease after all types of endodontic treatment and subsequent restoration and tooth extraction followed by an implant-supported prosthesis. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies were included in this systematic review: 3 retrospective cohort and 5 case-control studies. Three included studies revealed no difference in survival rate between endodontically treated teeth and implant-supported prostheses during the first 3 years, but the survival of endodontically treated teeth declined over time with a higher failure rate than implant-supported prostheses. In contrast, the other 3 included studies reported lower survival rate for implant-supported prostheses and more complications. In terms of patient-reported outcomes, patients were generally satisfied with both treatment modalities, with notable improvements in oral health-related quality of life in those receiving endodontic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether implant-supported prostheses or endodontically treated teeth are better in terms of survival outcome is unclear. Improved oral health-related quality of life was found after endodontic treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation of nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) and single-tooth implant (STI) provides useful information for medical decision. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NSRCT versus single-tooth implant (STI) after 5-year treatment in a university affiliated hospital in Beijing, China.

METHODS

211 patients who underwent NSRCT and 142 patients who had STI were included and recalled after 5-year treatment. The propensity scores were used to match the cases of two treatment modalities. At recall, outcomes were determined based on clinical and radiographical examinations. For endodontically treated cases, absence or reduction of radiolucency were defined as success. Marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm were determined as success for implant cases. Direct and indirect costs were calculated in China Yuan (CNY). Patients' willingness to pay (WTP) for each treatment modality was evaluated by questionnaires. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.

RESULTS

170 patients with 120 NSRCT teeth and 96 STI were available at recall. Based on propensity score matching, 76 endodontically treated teeth were matched to 76 implants. Absence of the radiolucency was observed in 58 of 76 endodontically treated teeth (76%) and reduction of the radiolucency in 9 of 76 teeth (12%) and altogether the success rate was 88%. 100% implants were detected with marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm. The cost advantage of NSRCT (4,751 CNY) over STI (20,298 CNY) was more pronounced. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 129,563 CNY (STI-NSRCT) per success rate gained. It exceeded the patients' willingness to pay value 7,533 CNY.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes of NSRCT and STI could be predictable after 5-year treatment. NSRCT may be more cost-effective than STI for managing endodontically diseased teeth.

Comparing the Long-Term Success Rates of Tooth Preservation and Dental Implants: A Critical Review

Implant therapy is considered a predictable, safe, and reliable rehabilitation method for edentulous patients in most clinical scenarios. Thus, there is a growing trend in the indications for implants, which seems attributable not only to their clinical success but also to arguments such as a more “simplified approach” based on convenience or the belief that dental implants are as good as natural teeth. Therefore, the objective of this critical literature review of observational studies was to discuss the evidence concerning the long-term survival rates and treatment outcomes, comparing endodontically or periodontally treated teeth with dental implants. Altogether, the evidence suggests that the decision between keeping a tooth or replacing it with an implant should carefully consider the condition of the tooth (e.g., amount of remaining tooth and degree of attachment loss and mobility), systemic disorders, and patient preference. Although observational studies revealed high success rates and long-term survival of dental implants, failures and complications are common. For this reason, attempts should be made to first save maintainable teeth over the long-term, instead of immediately replacing teeth with dental implants.

Patient-related outcomes and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in endodontics

There is increased interest in outcome measures that complement the classic goal of endodontics, being the prevention and healing of apical periodontitis. Possible outcome measures can be subdivided into patient-centred outcomes (PCOs), encompassing data collected by nonpatients aiming to assess the effectiveness of an intervention and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which are reported directly by the patient. PROs can be subsequently classed into PRO measures that ascertain patients' view of their symptoms, their functional status, and their health-related quality of life, and patient-reported experience measures that focus on aspects including the humanity of care, patient satisfaction, patient preference and adherence, personal costs, expectation fulfilment, and decision regrets. The present review aims to define various patient-related outcomes and discuss the literature available regarding PCOs and PROs in endodontics. This includes those proposed to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology S3-level clinical practice guidelines that have been included by all working groups, except for the radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Based on limited evidence in the field, it can be summarized that after recall periods of various lengths, endodontic treatment is associated with a high likelihood of tooth survival and limited need for further intervention, including extraction and further restorative procedures. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is likely to improve following the completion of treatment. Nonetheless, the literature assessing the association between OHRQoL and endodontics is hampered by the use of instruments that have not been previously validated. Amongst the remaining outcome measures discussed in the present review, it is worth highlighting that there is only one study assessing exacerbations in teeth with the presence of endodontic pathosis, which suggests a very low incidence of this adverse effect following endodontic treatment. Patients' expectation fulfilment, adherence, and satisfaction are closely inter-related and depend also on various nonclinical factors. Further studies assessing PCOs and PROs, in association with healing and prevention of apical periodontitis, are required to better understand endodontic treatment from the perspective of patients.

Treatment Outcome and Root Canal Preparation Techniques: 5-Year Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

This study aims at comparing treatment outcome and tooth survival of root canal-filled teeth following manual vs rotary instrumentation techniques over a 5-year period.

METHODS

This was a single-centre study conducted as a follow-up to a short-term parallel-arm randomised controlled noninferiority trial in which root canal treatment was performed on teeth using either rotary or manual instrumentation. Patients were monitored at post 6-month, 1-year, 4-year, and 5-year review periods by blinded evaluators. Treatment outcome was categorised as favourable, uncertain, and unfavourable (employing European Society of Endodontology categorisation based on strict clinical and radiographic criteria), and 5-year tooth survival was determined by assessing whether tooth was in situ in the oral cavity or extracted. The Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test evaluated tooth survival. P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety of 120 treated teeth were assessed in 37 men and 40 women with mean age of 30.6 ± 10.99 years. Treatment outcome was significantly more favourable in the rotary group compared to the manual group at post 6-month (P = .021) and 1-year (P = .043) review periods. The differences in favourable outcome (P = .498) and tooth survival (P = .296) between the 2 groups were, however, not significant at the 5-year review period.

CONCLUSIONS

The rotary instrumentation technique was shown to be more effective in resolving clinical symptoms and promoting periapical healing after the post 6-month and 1-year review compared to the manual instrumentation technique; however, both groups had similar favourable outcomes and survival rates after an extended 5-year review period.

Endodontic Treatment versus Implant Placement for Compromised Teeth: Decision-Making Trends in Saudi Arabia

Background:

The decision to save a compromised tooth is a major challenge among dentists and may vary among those with different areas of specialization.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to determine the influencing factors that play a role in decision-making trends when choosing whether or not to save a compromised tooth, either through endodontic treatment or extraction and implant placement.

Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample to assess decision-making within different dental specialties among various dental schools in Saudi Arabia. Participants were stratified into four groups based on clinical specialties, including endodontists (n = 45, 23.9%), periodontists (n = 51, 27.1%), prosthodontists (n = 55, 29.3%), and oral and maxillofacial surgeons (n = 37, 19.7%). The data of 188 participants were analyzed using Chi-square tests, with significance at p ≤ 0.05.

Results:

Endodontists were significantly more likely than other specialists (p ≤ 0.002) to decide to retain a compromised tooth rather than place an implant. In difficult prosthetic cases, faculty surgeons were significantly more likely to place an implant than other specialists (p ≤ 0.01).

Conclusion:

The assessment of decision-making trends demonstrated that retention of the natural tooth by endodontic and restorative treatments was preferred over extraction and implant placement. Increased prosthetic complexity shifted this preference towards implant placement. This study provides a basis to help identify factors contributing to decision-making among dental professionals; these factors could improve existing guidelines to ensure a successful practice.

Tooth survival following root canal treatment by general dental practitioners in a Swedish county - a 10-year follow-up study of a historical cohort

AIM

To evaluate the 10-year survival rate of root filled teeth treated by general dental practitioners (GDPs), and to identify possible prognostic factors.

METHODOLOGY

In 2006, 3676 individuals had at least one tooth root filled by a GDP within the Norrbotten Public Dental Service, Sweden. Over the next 10 years, 331 individuals died and were excluded. A random sample of 302 of the remaining individuals was included in the study, of whom 280 (n = 280 teeth) were included in the analysis. Dental records were reviewed retrospectively by a calibrated researcher to collect predetermined data regarding individual, pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative factors. The outcome measure was tooth extraction over time, and cases with no events were censored, regardless of apical status or symptoms, until last known date of tooth survival. In case of missing data, individuals were recalled for a control visit. Kaplan-Meier survival tables and Cox regression models were used for analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The cumulative 10-year survival was 81.7% (standard error: 2.6%), and the mean incidence of tooth extraction during the 10 years was 1.8% per year. The univariate analysis identified three possible prognostic factors (P < 0.05) that were associated with extraction: molars, two or more emergency inter-appointment visits during the treatment, and root canal treatments consisting of five or more separate sessions. A multivariate regression analysis revealed no significant relationships for the variables gender, tooth type, number of contacts, any emergency visits during endodontic treatment, number of sessions to complete endodontic treatment, pulp diagnosis, or type of permanent restoration and extraction.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean incidence of tooth loss over the first 10 years after completion of root canal treatment performed by a GDP was approximately 2% per year. No prognostic factors could be identified.