Treatment choices for negative outcomes with non-surgical root canal treatment: non-surgical retreatment vs. surgical retreatment vs. implants

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on surgical endodontics: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare relies on the translation of research results to everyday clinical practice. A fundamental requirement is that the validity of any healthcare intervention must be supported by the resultant favourable treatment outcome. Unfortunately, differences in study design and the outcome measures evaluated often make it challenging to synthesise the available research evidence required for secondary research analysis and guideline development. Core outcome sets (COS) are defined as an agreed standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported as a minimum in all clinical trials on a specific topic. The benefits of COS include less heterogeneity, a reduction in the risk of reporting bias, ensuring all trials contribute data to facilitate meta-analyses, and given the engagement of key stakeholders, it also increases the chances that clinically-relevant outcomes are identified. The recognition of the need for COS for assessing endodontic treatment outcomes lead to the development of Core Outcome Sets for Endodontic Treatment modalities (COSET) protocol, which is registered (No. 1879) on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) website.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the outcomes assessed in studies evaluating surgical endodontic procedures; (2) report on the method of assessment used to measure the outcomes; (3) and assess selective reporting bias in the included studies. The data obtained will be used to inform the development of COS for surgical endodontics.

METHODS

A structured literature search of electronic databases and the grey literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews on periradicular surgery (PS), intentional replantation (IR) and tooth/root resection (RR), published between January 1990 and December 2020. Two independent reviewers were involved in the literature selection, data extraction and the appraisal of the studies identified. The type of intervention, outcomes measured, type of outcomes reported (clinician- or patient-reported), outcome measurement method, and follow-up period, were recorded using a standardised form.

RESULTS

Twenty-six systematic reviews consisting of 19 studies for PS, three studies for IR and four studies for RR were selected for inclusion. Outcome measures identified for PS and IR included pain, swelling, mobility and tenderness, outcomes related to periodontal/soft tissue healing (including sinus tract), periradicular healing, tooth survival, life impact (including Oral-Health-Related-Quality-of-Life), resource use and/or adverse effects. For RR, in addition to tooth survival, endodontic complications, and adverse effects, the outcome measures were primarily periodontal-related, including pocket depth reduction, attachment gain, periodontal disease, and periodontic-endodontic lesions. The majority of outcome measures for PS, IR, and RR were assessed clinically, radiologically and/or via patient history. Specific tools such as rating scales (Visual Analog Scale, Verbal rating Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and other scales) were used for the assessment of pain, swelling, and tenderness, and validated questionnaires were used for the assessment of oral health-related quality of life. The range of follow-up periods were variable, dependent on the outcome measure and the type of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measures, method of assessment and follow-up periods for PS, IR and RR were identified and categorised to help standardise the reporting of outcomes for future research studies. Additional outcome measures that were not reported, but may be considered in the COSET consensus process include loss of root-end filling material, number of clinic visits, surgery-related dental anxiety and muco-gingival aesthetic-related measures, such as scarring, black triangles, root surface exposure, and tissue discolouration.

Long-term survival rate of teeth receiving multidisciplinary endodontic, periodontal and prosthodontic treatments

Deciding whether to replace or preserve a compromised tooth, even with emerging trends in implant dentistry, is still a common dilemma for practitioners. This study sought to determine the 3- to more than 10-year survival rate of teeth that had undergone endodontic, periodontal and prosthodontic treatments. A total of 245 teeth in 87 patients were clinically and radiographically evaluated. All the teeth had received crown lengthening surgery by a single periodontist. Root canal therapy and prosthodontic procedures were rendered either by specialists or by experienced general dentists. Numbers of lost teeth were recorded and the criteria for hopeless teeth were defined. Survival rate was determined using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Clinical indices including pocket depth (PD), bleeding index (BI), C/R ratio, position of the restoration margin relative to the gingival margin (RM-GM) and the presence of intra-canal post were compared between different survival groups (<3, 3-5, 5-10 and >10 years) using one-way analysis of variance (anova). Potential predictors of failure were determined using the Cox regression model. The mean ± s.d. of 3-, 5-, 10- and 13-year survival rates was 98 ± 1%, 96 ± 1·6%, 83·1 ± 4·5% and 51·9 ± 14·5%, respectively. The mean PD (P < 0·013), as well as C/R ratio in the mesial (P = 0·003) and distal (P = 0·007) surfaces, was significantly higher in the >10-year-survived teeth. Bleeding index and RM-GM showed no significant differences between the groups. C/R ratio and RM-GM position appeared to be the major determinants of tooth loss. The long-term survival rate of multidisciplinary-treated teeth was 83-98% in this specific sample.

Implant or the natural tooth--a contemporary treatment planning dilemma?

An assessment of whether to rehabilitate a tooth requiring endodontic treatment or to replace it with a dental implant can often involve a challenging and complex decision-making process. This paper reviews the literature pertaining to both treatment modalities and identifies key issues that need careful consideration in planning the most appropriate course of care in a given clinical situation. A need to appreciate advances across both disciplines is highlighted, allowing the development of effective interdisciplinary evidence-based treatment strategies to maximize treatment outcome.