Clinical management of external cervical resorption: A systematic review

This review investigated whether any therapeutic options influenced the outcome of treatment for teeth with external cervical resorption. Out of 870 articles identified by an electronic search, 60 clinical case reports and six case series were included. No randomised clinical trials were found. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's tools. External surgical intervention was the preferred method of accessing the lesions. Removal of resorptive tissue was most often achieved mechanically. Bioactive endodontic cements were the preferred materials for restoring teeth. The outcome measures were based on clinical and radiographic parameters. Of the cases included in the review, no specific treatment approach had a superior outcome in relation to Heithersay's classification. Furthermore, due to the absence of randomised clinical trials, and the low level of evidence associated with case reports/case series, it was not possible to define the optimum clinical treatment for external cervical resorption.

External Cervical Resorption: Relationships Between Classification, Treatment, and One-Year Outcome with Evaluation of the Heithersay and Patel Classification Systems

INTRO

The purpose of this study was to identify possible associations between classification, treatment, and one-year outcome of external cervical resorption (ECR) lesions using the Heithersay and Patel systems. Performance of the Patel 3-dimensional classification system was also evaluated.

METHODS

A chart review identified 142 cases of ECR over a twelve-year period. Information regarding demographics, predisposing factors, lesion classification, treatment, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Inter- and intra-observer reliability analyses were conducted for both classification systems.

RESULTS

There were 72 cases with at least one year of follow up. 70% of these cases survived. Treatment recommendations were correlated with both Heithersay and Patel classification. There were no correlations found between one-year outcome and either classification or treatment done. The weighted reliability analysis showed substantial agreement in both classification systems for both inter- and intra-observer agreement. There was a significant association between the two systems, however the Heithersay system tended to underestimate the apical extent of the lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Periodic review of ECR lesions presents as a viable treatment option, at least for one year after diagnosis. The Patel 3-D classification system is at least as effective as the Heithersay system and should be used in future ECR prognosis studies. Further long-term outcome assessments are still needed.

Invasive Cervical Resorption: Clinical Management in the Anterior Zone

According to the high number of articles published on invasive cervical resorption (ICR), this pathology, as commonly believed, is a more frequent form of cervical resorption. ICR is often misdiagnosed as internal resorption or caries, which leads to inappropriate treatment and even unnecessary tooth loss. Despite a correct diagnosis, the treatment of this type of hyperplastic invasive external resorption poses a challenge for the clinician. The Heithersay classification and the use of cone-beam computed tomographic imaging have increased our knowledge of the pathology and helped improve its prognosis. Nevertheless, there is no standard protocol for the treatment of this type of lesion. This article proposes a treatment protocol for ICR based on the pattern and location of resorption. Three treatment approaches (internal access, external access, and intentional replantation) are presented through 3 clinical cases.