Survival rates of endodontically treated teeth after placement of definitive coronal restoration: 8-year retrospective study

19Citations
Citations of this article
116Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Preservation of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) depends upon several patient-related and operator-related factors. The objectives of this study were to assess the effects of different types of coronal restoration and delayed placement on ETT survival. Methods: Data on dates of root canal treatment (RCT), restoration type, and extraction time of tooth, when applicable, were analyzed for all patients who underwent RCT from 2010 to 2018 at our institution. Inclusion Criteria: Root canal-treated teeth with complete preoperative and postoperative radiographs; ETT that were restorable and received final permanent coronal restorations; no periodontal disease or crack detected during RCT; and ETT with acceptable RCT quality. Exclusion Criteria: Patients who did not attend for follow-up, those had incomplete information available about the coronal restoration, and those with periodontally compromised teeth were excluded. ETT that involved any procedural error were also excluded. The teeth were categorized according to whether they underwent definitive coronal restoration 0–14 days, 15–59 days, or 60+ days after RCT. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The rate of survival of ETT of 8 years was estimated, and the differences between groups were determined after applying Kaplan–Meier statistics and log-rank tests. A multivariate Cox regression test and Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistics were computed to analyze the influence of different variables. A P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: The type of restoration, opposing dentition, presence of a post, and dentistry training (year 4 or 5 students) showed significant effects on the survival of ETT (P ≤ 0.000). ETT which received crowns was 2.05 times more likely to need extraction than those in which a composite buildup was performed (hazard ratio [HR] 2.05; confidence interval [CI] 1.84–2.29; P ≤ 0.000). All composite buildups were performed within 14 days of completion of RCT. There was asignificant correlation between the time of placement of the final coronal restoration and ETT survival (P ≤ 0.000). Extraction of ETT was 25% more likely (HR 0.25; CI 0.231–0.277) when the final coronal restoration was placed 15–59 days after completion of RCTand 73% more likely (HR 0.73; CI 0.655–0.814) when placed after 60 days than when placed at 0–14 days. Conclusion: Timely placement of the final coronal restoration is found to be the most critical factor affecting the long-term survival of teeth after RCT.

References Powered by Scopus

Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment

1200Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition

0
756Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration

748Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Clinical performance of direct composite resin versus indirect restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

27Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Calcium silicate and calcium aluminate cements for dentistry reviewed

27Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Correlation of Crack Lines and Definitive Restorations with the Survival and Success Rates of Cracked Teeth: A Long-term Retrospective Clinical Study

23Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sadaf, D. (2020). Survival rates of endodontically treated teeth after placement of definitive coronal restoration: 8-year retrospective study. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 16, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S223233

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 33

72%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

9%

Researcher 3

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 48

91%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

4%

Arts and Humanities 2

4%

Social Sciences 1

2%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free