Demographic factors in the choice of coronal restoration after root canal treatment in the Swedish adult population

Patient record assessment of results and related resources spent during one year after initiation of root canal treatment in a Swedish public dental organisation

Aim

To document treatment outcomes and related resources, in patients undergoing root canal treatment (RCT) in county public dental clinics, by monitoring patient records for 12 months from treatment start.

Methodology

The subjects comprised 243 patients starting RCT at 20 public dental clinics in Västra Götaland county, Sweden. Their computerized dental records were monitored prospectively for a year after starting their endodontic treatment. Treatment was completed with either a root filling or extraction. The following treatment‐specific variables were registered: number of appointments and days until treatment was completed, possible complications and prescriptions for antibiotics, and for the root filled teeth: type of coronal restoration and further procedures undertaken within the year. The treatment outcomes were compared with the preoperative variables and in a logistic regression analysis.

Results

Complete data were available for 240 patients (98.8%): 128 women and 112 men, with a mean age of 48.5 years (SD = 16.3). Molar teeth predominated (n = 113, 47.1%). Most cases were completed with a root filling (n = 169, 70.4%). The remainder were extracted (n = 32, 13.3%) or were still uncompleted (n = 39, 16.3%). On average, a root filling was completed in 2.4 (SD = 0.9) appointments, or extraction at the third appointment (SD = 1.6). The molars were less often completed and often predominant among the extracted teeth. The indication for extraction was often for endodontic or RCT‐related reasons. Most complications were registered in the molars and antibiotics were prescribed in 20 cases. Most root filled teeth were restored with a direct restoration. Four root filled teeth (2.4%) were extracted within the time period.

Conclusions

Patient records, followed from the start of treatment, show that 12 months on, the root filling had not been completed in just under 30% of the teeth. Of these, about half were extracted. Of particular concern is the outcome for endodontic treatment of molar teeth. In the general practice setting, molar endodontics are not only technically challenging but also very demanding in terms of chairside resources. In the present study, a successful outcome was achieved in just over half the cases.

Survival of root filled teeth in general dentistry in a Swedish county: a 6-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the survival rate of root filled teeth in general dentistry in a Swedish county and to identify risk predictors with a significant influence on the survival rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective 6-year follow-up study on 1642 recall patients with 1720 teeth root filled in general dentistry in the Public Dental Service in the county of Stockholm, Sweden. Background variables were collected from the database at baseline as potential predictors of tooth loss. The outcome variables were extraction during the 6-year follow-up period and the reason for the extraction. Stepwise Cox regression analysis was adopted in order to investigate the influence of the potential risk predictors on the risk for tooth extraction.

RESULTS

Nine percent of the root filled teeth were lost after 6 years. The most frequent reason for tooth loss was fracture and/or cracks (58%). The survival rate of the root filled teeth increased significantly for younger patients, root filled teeth with metal crowns (96%) and high quality of the root filling (93%). The survival rate differed significantly between tooth groups with the lowest survival for molars (83%). Composite fillings were significantly associated with lower quality of the root fillings.

CONCLUSIONS

Ninety-one percent of the root filled teeth survived after 6 years. The survival rate was significantly higher for teeth with root-fillings of high quality and metal crowns as well as for root filled teeth in younger patients. The lowest survival rate was found for molars.

Coronal restoration of the root filled tooth - a qualitative analysis of the dentists' decision-making process

Aim

To describe the decision‐making process of the general dental practitioner (GDP) underlying the choice of coronal restoration of a root filled tooth.

Methodology

GDPs were strategically selected with respect to gender, age, undergraduate dental school, service affiliation and duration of professional experience. Semistructured in‐depth interviews were conducted, focusing on the informant’s personal experience of the process which leads to a decision as to how to restore a root filled tooth. The informants were invited to describe in their own words the latest two cases involving decisions of direct or full crown restorations respectively. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews from 14 informants, aged 27–64 (mean age 46 years), were included and analysed according to Qualitative Content Analysis.

Results

A theme (latent content) was identified: Clinical factors were considered important but were overruled by context and patient opinions, if in conflict. Three main categories, including seven subcategories (manifest content), were identified. The categories were clinical factors, contextual factors and patient's views. Clinical factors underlying the GDPs' decision included the current dental status and the estimated longevity of the intended restoration. In certain cases, contextual factors were also of importance, either supporting the GDPs' decision or modifying it. However, the patient's views played a decisive role in the final choice of coronal restoration, leading to either mutual acceptance or a compromise, taking into account the patient's economic status and opinions.

Conclusions

With respect to coronal restoration of a root filled tooth, the GDPs’ decision‐making process was based not only on clinical factors, but also on decisive contextual factors and consideration of the patients’ views.