Abstract
Context:
Well-conducted endodontic therapy is necessary for the dental rehabilitation of the individuals with cleft lip and palate.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to verify the success and failure index of endodontic treatments performed in the Endodontic Sector of the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, (HRAC/USP), Bauru, Brazil.
Materials and Methods:
The preservation records (at least 2 years) of the endodontic treatments performed in the HRAC/USP were verified, indicating the success or failure of the treatment, and these treatments were divided into three groups (vital pulp, necrotic pulp, and endodontic retreatment). The Chi-square statistical test was applied with a significance level of 5%.
Results:
A total of 1216 endodontic treatments were quantified with a minimum of 2 years of prenatal care at HRAC/USP. The vital pulp group had a success rate of 99.4% (535 treatments) and 0.6% failure (3 treatments), 98.6% of success in the necrotic pulp group (577 treatments) and 1.4% failure (8 treatments), and 95.6% success rate (89 treatments) and 4.4% failure (4 treatments) in the endodontic reintervention group.
Conclusion:
From the results found, we can conclude that there was a high success rate in the treatments and endodontic retreatments performed in the Endodontics Sector of the HRAC/USP, considering that well-conducted endodontic therapy is extremely important in the oral rehabilitation of individuals with cleft lip and palate.
Keywords: Cleft palate, dental pulp, endodontics
INTRODUCTION
Pulp necrosis denotes the cessation of the metabolic processes of this tissue, with consequent loss of its structure, as well as its natural defenses. In these cases, the recommended endodontic treatment is known as necropulpectomy.[1,2]
Despite all the obstacles inherent in combating infection in the root canal system, studies show a high success rate of endodontic treatment: between 85 and 95%, especially in cases where endodontic treatment is necessary in vital pulp (biopulpectomy), where the infection is restricted to the pulp chamber.[3,4,5] Although endodontic treatment is a predictable procedure with high success rates, failures can occur either through persistent infection or through recontamination of the root canal system at some time after endodontic intervention.[6,7] There is an evidence in the literature demonstrating that the persistence of apical biofilm with areas of the bone resorption may be related to failure rates of endodontic therapy.[8,9]
Endodontic retreatment has lower success rates when compared to the treatment itself.[10,11,12] In analyzing the success of the endodontic retreatment, a rate of approximately 66% was reported, and this index is lower compared to the high rates obtained with the treatments, indicating, in addition to the technical difficulties inherent to iatrogenic factors, the impossibility of eliminating microorganisms resistant to biomechanical preparation.[13,14] The oral rehabilitation of individuals with cleft lip and palate is complex, extensive, and multidisciplinary and may require endodontic treatment, either by prosthetic purpose or by microbial etiology.[15]
Orofacial fissures represent the most prevalent craniofacial changes in humans, ranging from 1:500 to 1:2500 live births worldwide depending on the different ethnic groups (nonsyndromic), defect or in conjunction with other defects (syndromic).[16,17,18,19,20]
When irreversible damage is caused to the pulp tissue, endodontic treatment should be performed to restore the masticatory functions and normal physiology of the tooth. Moreover, if carefully planned, well executed, and with observance of the peculiarities of the dental element near the area of fissure, the treatment may lead to success, achieving the same percentage of success associated with endodontic treatments performed on nonfissured individuals.[21,22]
Therefore, it is of interest to know the success index of the endodontic treatments performed in the individuals attended in the Endodontic Sector of the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC/USP), at the moment of the return to the preservation, collaborating for the quality control of the service to review the efficiency of its practices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The HRAC/USP Data Processing Center requested, after approval of the present study by the HRAC/USP's Human Research Ethics Committee under the number 59829916.0.0000.5441 the listing of individuals who performed the preservation of endodontic therapies in the last 2 years, and these records were selected, making a total of 1216 treatments derived from endodontic treatments and reinterventions, whose data were verified and recorded with respect to the success or failure of the treatment performed, thus, the data obtained were quantified and tabulated using the Microsoft Excel program. Chi-square statistical test, which was applied with a significance level of 5%.
According to the type of endodontic treatment performed, data from the present study were divided into three groups:
Group 1: Data obtained from the preservation of endodontically treated teeth with vital pulp
Group 2: Data obtained from the preservation of endodontically treated teeth with necrotic pulp
Group 3: Data obtained from the preservation of endodontically treated teeth that required endodontic retreatment.
Endodontic treatments of each group were quantified regarding their success or failure, taking into account the analysis performed and annotated in the medical records by the professional responsible for the care.
RESULTS
A total of 1216 endodontic preservations were quantified, of which 538 belonged to Group 1, 585 to Group 2, and 93 to Group 3.
The percentage of success and failure was verified according to the type of treatment performed; thus, Group 1 (endodontically treated teeth with vital pulp, biopulpectomy) had a success rate of 99.4% (535 treatments) and 0.6% of failure (3 treatments); Group 2 (endodontically treated teeth with necrotic pulp, necropulpectomy) had 98.6% success (577 treatments) and 1.4% failure (8 treatments); and Group 3 (endodontically treated teeth requiring endodontic retreatment) had 95.6% success (89 treatments) and 4.4% failure (4 treatments) [Figure 1].
Figure 1.
Percentage of success according to the type of treatment performed. Group 1. Endodontically treated teeth with vital pulp (biopulpectomy); Group 2. Endodontically treated teeth with necrotic pulp (necropulpectomy); Group 3. Endodontically treated teeth that required endodontic retreatment (endodontic retreatment)
In relation to dental groups, the maxillary central incisors (teeth 11 and 21) had a higher number of observed tenderness and consequently a higher percentage of success [Table 1].
Table 1.
Distribution of the dental groups referring to the clinical and radiograph follow-up verified and percentage of success of the same
| Upper maxilla | Lower maxilla | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Teeth | n (%) | Teeth | n (%) |
| Tooth 11 | 129 (10.6) | Tooth 31 | 25 (2.1) |
| Tooth 12 | 37 (3.0) | Tooth 32 | 14 (1.2) |
| Tooth 13 | 35 (2.9) | Tooth 33 | 17 (1.4) |
| Tooth 14 | 30 (2.5) | Tooth 34 | 18 (1.5) |
| Tooth 15 | 45 (3.7) | Tooth 35 | 27 (2.2) |
| Tooth 16 | 70 (5.8) | Tooth 36 | 83 (6.8) |
| Tooth 17 | 24 (2.0) | Tooth 37 | 26 (2.1) |
| Tooth 18 | 1 (0.1) | Tooth 38 | 4 (0.3) |
| Tooth 21 | 142 (11.6) | Tooth 41 | 20 (1.6) |
| Tooth 22 | 28 (2.3) | Tooth 42 | 10 (0.8) |
| Tooth 23 | 62 (5.1) | Tooth 43 | 7 (0.6) |
| Tooth 24 | 47 (3.9) | Tooth 44 | 30 (2.5) |
| Tooth 25 | 48 (3.9) | Tooth 45 | 36 (3.0) |
| Tooth 26 | 65 (5.3) | Tooth 46 | 72 (5.9) |
| Tooth 27 | 33 (2.7) | Tooth 47 | 28 (2.3) |
| Tooth 28 | 2 (0.2) | Tooth 48 | 1 (0.1) |
| Total | 798 (65.6) | Total | 418 (34.4) |
| Total teeth | 1.216 (100) | ||
DISCUSSION
The scientific technical advance in endodontics in the last years has been increasing the incidence of success of the treatment of root canals.[23] The absence of spontaneous and provoked painful symptomatology, hermetic sealing, dental element rehabilitated in masticatory function, and the repair of the apical and periapical tissues are clinical criteria of success in endodontic therapy.[24] When failure occurs, it is closely related to the persistence of microorganisms after endodontic obturation and/or infection due to lack of coronary sealing.[23,25]
Endodontic treatment is not terminated with obturation of the root canal system. Clinical and radiographic control (preservation) is extremely important for the longevity of therapy; once any alteration is detected, endodontic retreatment is indicated, as long as it is able to be performed.[11]
The European Society of Endodontics (EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF ENDODONTOLOGY, 2006) suggests that radiographs of control should be taken for at least 1 year after the endodontic treatment is completed and that subsequent radiographs are taken, if necessary. In view of the difficulty of performing the histopathological analysis of the periapical lesion, clinical and radiographic preservation should be encouraged by the professional for the period of 2–4 years.[12,26] In the present study, only endodontic treatments with at least 2 years of preservation period were included.
The success of endodontic treatment is closely related to the condition of the pulp tissue. In the radical treatment of inflamed vital pulp (biopulpectomy), the infection when present is restricted to the pulp chamber and cervical third. The root canal system and the periradicular tissues are not infected. Thus, a high success rate is found for endodontic treatments with vital pulp when compared to the treatments of necrotic pulp and retreatment.[27] This fact was verified in the present study where 99.4% (535 treatments) of success index was obtained and only 0.6% (3 treatments) of cases of failure in the group of teeth treated endodontically with vital pulp (biopulpectomies) (Group 1). In cases of necrotic pulp (necropulpectomy) and in cases of teeth that require endodontic retreatment, the success rate is decreased, since the professional must perform a biomechanical preparation with the purpose of eliminating the pathogenic microbiota from the canal system.[28] Numerous bacterial species have been detected in infected root canals and their elimination is not always achieved, culminating in the persistence of endodontic infection, resulting in failure of therapy.[25] In cases of endodontic retreatment, the success rate is even lower, since in addition to eliminating the microorganisms of the root canal system, it is fundamental to remove all existing obturator material and correction of possible-related iatrogenics.[29,30,31] These data corroborate in with the results of the present study, where the percentage of success of the endodontic treatments in necrotic pulp and of the teeth that required endodontic retreatment were lower in comparison with the group of teeth treated in vital pulp. Nevertheless, the three groups analyzed had a high success rate. The Group 2 endodontically treated teeth with necrotic pulp (Necropulpectomy) achieved 98.6% success (577 treatments) and 1.4% failure (8 treatments), and the Group 3 endodontically treated teeth that required endodontic retreatment presented 95.6% success cases (89 treatments) and 4.4% of failure (4 treatments); 93 cases of endodontic retreatment were analyzed. It is believed that for all the difficulties inherent to endodontic retreatment, if more cases of this type were analyzed, we could find a lower success rate, although, we always aim for success.
The success of endodontic therapy is partly related to the knowledge of the internal dental anatomy and its variations.[32] The upper central incisors present a single root, usually straight, with a single and conical root canal.[33] Thus, the endodontic treatment of the upper central incisors most often occurs without intercurrences or iatrogenics, which justifies the highest percentage of successful cases (10.6% for the 11 tooth and 11.6% for the 21 tooth) compared to the other teeth, but we must take into account the fact that they were the cases of greater number of retention and, consequently, the expression of success.
CONCLUSION
The success index of the treatments or endodontic retreatments performed in the Endodontic Sector of the HRAC/USP is high, these data being of great relevance, since well-conducted endodontic therapy is necessary for the dental rehabilitation of the individuals with cleft lip and palate.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the HRAC/USP for allowing us to carry out this research.
REFERENCES
- 1.Sooratgar A, Tabrizizade M, Nourelahi M, Asadi Y, Sooratgar H. Management of an endodontic-periodontal lesion in a maxillary lateral incisor with palatal radicular groove: A case report. Iran Endod J. 2016;11:142–5. doi: 10.7508/iej.2016.02.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Takahama A, Jr, Rôças IN, Faustino IS, Alves FR, Azevedo RS, Gomes CC, et al. Association between bacteria occurring in the apical canal system and expression of bone-resorbing mediators and matrix metalloproteinases in apical periodontitis. Int Endod J. 2018;51:738–46. doi: 10.1111/iej.12895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Swartz DB, Skidmore AE, Griffin JA., Jr Twenty years of endodontic success and failure. J Endod. 1983;9:198–202. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(83)80092-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1990;16:498–504. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Smith CS, Setchell DJ, Harty FJ. Factors influencing the success of conventional root canal therapy – A five-year retrospective study. Int Endod J. 1993;26:321–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1993.tb00765.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Salehrabi R, Rotstein I. Endodontic treatment outcomes in a large patient population in the USA: An epidemiological study. J Endod. 2004;30:846–50. doi: 10.1097/01.don.0000145031.04236.ca. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Siqueira JF, Jr, Rôças IN. Present status and future directions in endodontic microbiology. Endod Top. 2014;30:3–22. doi: 10.1111/iej.13677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chugal N, Wang JK, Wang R, He X, Kang M, Li J, et al. Molecular characterization of the microbial flora residing at the apical portion of infected root canals of human teeth. J Endod. 2011;37:1359–64. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.06.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Rôças IN, Hülsmann M, Siqueira JF., Jr Microorganisms in root canal-treated teeth from a German population. J Endod. 2008;34:926–31. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Strindberg LZ. The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors; an analytic study based on radiographic and clinical follow-up examinations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1956;14:1–175. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Travassos RM, Caldas Ade F, de Albuquerque DS. Cohort study of endodontic therapy success. Braz Dent J. 2003;14:109–13. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402003000200007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Torabinejad M, Kutsenko D, Machnick TK, Ismail A, Newton CW. Levels of evidence for the outcome of nonsurgical endodontic treatment. J Endod. 2005;31:637–46. doi: 10.1097/01.don.0000153593.64951.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Allen RK, Newton CW, Brown CE., Jr A statistical analysis of surgical and nonsurgical endodontic retreatment cases. J Endod. 1989;15:261–6. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80221-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hepworth MJ, Friedman S. Treatment outcome of surgical and non-surgical management of endodontic failures. J Can Dent Assoc. 1997;63:364–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Leonardo MR, Leonardo RT. 2th ed. São Paulo (BR): Artes Médicas; 2017. Root canal treatment: Technological and Biological advances of a low invasive endodontics on apical and periapical tissue. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Handa Y, Maeda K, Toida M, Kitajima T, Ishimaru J, Nagai A, et al. Kabuki make-up syndrome (Niikawa-kuroki syndrome) with cleft lip and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1991;19:99–101. doi: 10.1016/s1010-5182(05)80570-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tolarová MM, Cervenka J. Classification and birth prevalence of orofacial clefts. Am J Med Genet. 1998;75:126–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Trindade IE. São Paulo (BR): Santos Editora; 2007. Cleft lip and palate: A multidisciplinary approach. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Setó-Salvia N, Stanier P. Genetics of cleft lip and/or cleft palate: Association with other common anomalies. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57:381–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2014.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sarmiento K, Valencia S, Gracia G, Hurtado-Villa P, Zarante I. Clinical and epidemiologic description of orofacial clefts in bogota and cali, colombia, 2001-2015. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55:517–20. doi: 10.1177/1055665617741062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hussne RP, Berbert FL, Nishiyama CK, Câmara AS, Pinheiro CR, Leonardo RT. Investigation of the endodontic needs and planning in patients with cleft lip and or palate submitted to surgical treatment. Perspect Oral Sci. 2009;1:19–23. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pereira AC, Nishiyama CK, Pinto LC. Dental Anomalies in unilateral incisive trans-foramen cleft individuals and root canal treatment. RFO. 2013;18:328–34. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Muliyar S, Shameem KA, Thankachan RP, Francis PG, Jayapalan CS, Hafiz KA, et al. Microleakage in endodontics. J Int Oral Health. 2014;6:99–104. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Uraba S, Ebihara A, Komatsu K, Ohbayashi N, Okiji T. Ability of cone-beam computed tomography to detect periapical lesions that were not detected by periapical radiography: A retrospective assessment according to tooth group. J Endod. 2016;42:1186–90. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tabassum S, Khan FR. Failure of endodontic treatment: The usual suspects. Eur J Dent. 2016;10:144–7. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.175682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Demeter A, Bogdán S, Tóth Z, Nemes J. Complex treatment of a large radicular cyst due to traumatic dental injury – a case report. Fogorv Sz. 2014;107:29–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Siqueira JF, Jr, Rôças IN, Lopes HP, Alves FR, Oliveira JC, Armada L, et al. Biological principles of vital pulp root canal treatment. Rev Bras Odontol. 2011;68:161–5. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ricucci D, Siqueira JF., Jr Biofilms and apical periodontitis: Study of prevalence and association with clinical and histopathologic findings. J Endod. 2010;36:1277–88. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lazarski MP, Walker WA, 3rd, Flores CM, Schindler WG, Hargreaves KM. Epidemiological evaluation of the outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment in a large cohort of insured dental patients. J Endod. 2001;27:791–6. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200112000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Imura N, Pinheiro ET, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC, Souza-Filho FJ, et al. The outcome of endodontic treatment: A retrospective study of 2000 cases performed by a specialist. J Endod. 2007;33:1278–82. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zhang C, Du J, Peng Z. Correlation between Enterococcus faecalis and persistent intraradicular infection compared with primary intraradicular infection: A systematic review. J Endod. 2015;41:1207–13. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Jungnickel L, Kruse C, Vaeth M, Kirkevang LL. Quality aspects of ex vivo root canal treatments done by undergraduate dental students using four different endodontic treatment systems. Acta Odontol Scand. 2018;76:169–74. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2017.1396494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Rao Genovese F, Marsico EM. Maxillary central incisor with two roots: A case report. J Endod. 2003;29:220–1. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200303000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]