Introduction
Thorough cleaning and shaping of root canals are essential for periapical healing. Restoration of endodontically-treated teeth is also required for them to function and prevent coronal leakage. This study compared the impact of the quality of root canal treatment versus the quality of coronal restoration in treatment outcomes.
Methods
Literature search was conducted using the search terms “coronal restoration”, “root canal”, “periapical status” and “quality”. Articles that evaluated the effect of the quality of root filling and coronal restoration or both on the success of root canal treatment were selected. Nine articles were identified and were reviewed by three investigators. Data were collected based on pre-determined criteria. Percentages of teeth without apical periodontitis were recorded for each category: Adequate Root Canal Treatment (AE), Inadequate Root Canal Treatment (IE), Adequate Restoration (AR), Inadequate Restoration (IR). Data were analyzed using meta-analysis for odds ratios (ORs).
Results
After adjusting for significant covariates to reduce heterogeneity, the results were combined to obtain pooled estimates of the common OR for the comparison of AR/AE vs AR/IE (OR 2.734; 95% CI 2.61–2.88; p<0.001) and AR/AE vs IR/AE (OR 2.808; 95% CI 2.64–2.97; p<0.001).
Conclusion
On the basis of the current best available evidence, the odds for healing of apical periodontitis increase with both adequate root canal treatment and adequate restorative treatment. Although poorer clinical outcomes may be expected with adequate root filling-inadequate coronal restoration and inadequate root filling-adequate coronal restoration, there is no significant difference in the odds of healing between these two combinations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.