Long-term results of amalgam versus glass ionomer cement as apical sealant after apicectomy

Jesslén, Per; Zetterqvist, Lars; Heimdahl, Anders

doi:10.1016/s1079-2104(05)80082-4

Cited by 119 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean total quality score, out of a possible 17 points, was 7.1 AE 2.1 for nonsurgical retreatment studies and 5.5 AE 2.3 for endodontic surgery studies. Very few RCTs met the inclusion criteria, with only a single RCT in the nonsurgical retreatment group (34) and 3 RCTs in the endodontic surgery group (34,46,47). Overall, the included articles were dominated by less rigorous caseseries analyses, which comprised 38% of the nonsurgical retreatment and 61% of the endodontic surgery articles.…”

Section: Description Of the Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Nonsurgical Retreatment and Endodontic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Torabinejad

Corr

Handysides

et al. 2009

Journal of Endodontics

363

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment with those of endodontic surgery to determine which modality offers more favorable outcomes. Methods: The study began with targeted electronic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, followed with exhaustive hand searching and citation mining for all articles reporting clinical and/or radiographic outcomes for at least a mean follow-up of 2 years for these procedures. Pooled and weighted success rates were determined from a meta-analysis of the data abstracted from the articles. Results: A significantly higher success rate was found for endodontic surgery at 2-4 years (77.8%) compared with nonsurgical retreatment for the same follow-up period (70.9%; P < .05). At 4-6 years, however, this relationship was reversed, with nonsurgical retreatment showing a higher success rate of 83.0% compared with 71.8% for endodontic surgery (P < .05). Insufficient numbers of articles were available to make comparisons after 6 years of follow-up period. Endodontic surgery studies showed a statistically significant decrease in success with each increasing follow-up interval (P < .05). The weighted success for 2-4 years was 77.8%, which declined at 4-6 years to 71.8% and further declined at 6+ years to 62.9% (P < .05). Conversely, the nonsurgical retreatment success rates demonstrated a statistically significant increase in weighted success from 2-4 years (70.9%) to 4-6 years (83.0%; P < .05). Conclusions: On the basis of these results it appears that endodontic surgery offers more favorable initial success, but nonsurgical retreatment offers a more favorable long-term outcome. (J Endod 2009;35:930-937)

show abstract

Section: Description Of the Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Nonsurgical Retreatment and Endodontic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Torabinejad

Corr

Handysides

et al. 2009

Journal of Endodontics

363

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Jesslen et al [24] the validity of a 1-year follow up is predictable in over 95% of the cases. The sensitivity of the human eye to the minor radiographic changes overtime is limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Treatment Radiographic and Clinical Evaluation of Matched-Taper Single-Cone versus Warm Vertical Compaction Technique: a One-Year Follow up Study

Atteia¹

2015

JDHODT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These results are in line with those of studies conducted with any material (ranging from 40% [5] to 97% [6]), and it can therefore be concluded that, at one year, IRM R is neither better nor worse than any other material. Success rates however subsequently falls for amalgam and glass ionomer cement with a 4-year success rate ranging from 59% [38] to 70% [39]. Long-term prognosis is beyond the scope of this study.…”

Section: Success Uncertain Healing and Failure Ratesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Success rate and recurrence frequency of periapical surgery: prospective study on 132 cases

Alantar

Bloud²,

Galéazzi

et al. 2010

Med Buccale Chir Buccale

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Objectives:Primary aim is to quantify the success rate of periapical surgery. Secondary objectives include the determination of the histological nature of the lesions, and the incidence of the different teeth on which this surgery is performed. Study design: This is a prospective cohort study conducted in one centre. The same operator following a standardized surgical protocol performed all surgeries. Follow-up (including clinical examination and periapical X-ray) was conducted at day 7, and months 6, 12 and 18. Statistical analysis included determination of the mean, standard deviation and paired two-tailed Student's t-test, for each of the variables. Results: 132 periapical surgeries were performed on 114 patients. Success and failure rate at 18 months, are 90%, and 6%, and uncertain in 4%. Histopathology confirmed that 72% of the lesions were granulomas, and 28% cysts. Periapical surgery pertains mostly to maxillary (70%) and posterior teeth (70%). Conclusion: Prognosis of conventional periapical surgery is very good. Failure rate peaks at 7 months, written informed consent is paramount.A radiolucent apex after endodontic treatment is a common finding with up to 45% of the treated teeth in certain studies [1,2]. These lesions can be found during a routine check-up, or during an emergency appointment when associated with pain. As orofacial pain is ascribed to periapical abscesses in 25% of the patients [3], these periapical radiolucencies, in the context of periapical surgery, can be a diagnostic challenge. Periapical abscesses are the consequence of a bacterial infection of the root canals [4]. Treatment classically consists of the elimination of necrotic and infected tissue, followed by obturation of the root canal system and a sealed restoration of the crown. Periapical surgery is indicated when root canal retreatment has failed or is contraindicated [4]. An osteo-mucoperiosteal flap followed by the appropriate osteotomy allows access to the apex of the tooth. The lesion is removed and the root canal system sealed [4]. Success rates reported vary between 40% [5] and 97% [6]. Correspondence: alpalantar@wanadoo.fr The main objective of this study is to assess the success rate of periapical surgery using a standardized protocol. Secondary objectives include the determination of the histological appearance of the lesions (granulomas or cysts), the incidence of the different teeth on which this surgery is performed, and the recurrence frequency.

show abstract

Long-term results of amalgam versus glass ionomer cement as apical sealant after apicectomy

Cited by 119 publications

References 13 publications

Outcomes of Nonsurgical Retreatment and Endodontic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Outcomes of Nonsurgical Retreatment and Endodontic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Post-Treatment Radiographic and Clinical Evaluation of Matched-Taper Single-Cone versus Warm Vertical Compaction Technique: a One-Year Follow up Study

Success rate and recurrence frequency of periapical surgery: prospective study on 132 cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About