Article Options
Categories


Search


Advanced Search



This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from endodonticsjournal.com and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License


Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.


Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 3  »  Radiographic evaluation of the prevalence and technical quality of root canal treatment in a French subpopulation
Radiographic evaluation of the prevalence and technical quality of root canal treatment in a French subpopulation
Results.



A total of 208 subjects were examined with a mean age 45.9 12.9 years. The distribution of the subjects by age is given in Figure 1; females comprised 62% of the sample.

Teeth.
The mean number of teeth per subject was 25.8, which corresponded to a total number of 5373 teeth (Table 1); 19.1% were root-filled. The periapical status of all teeth is indicated in Table 1. Excluding the 61 teeth for which the periapical status was impossible to determine, 7.4% of the teeth had a periapical lesion (PAI > 2). The periapical status of root-filled and nonroot-filled teeth is given in Table 2. In the nonroot-filled teeth, 2% presented with a PAI > 2 vs. 29.7% for the root-filled teeth.

Effect of pretreatment on survival of E. faecalis JH2-2 challenged with sodium hypochlorite and calcium hydroxide
Figure 1. Age and gender distribution of the sample.

Roots.
The teeth included in the survey had a total number of 8899 roots, of which 156 were not included in the study because of the poor quality of the radiograph or the absence of the apex on the radiograph. Of the 8743 usable roots, 1982 had undergone root canal treatment (22.7%). Amongst these, 24.4% had radiological signs of a periapical lesion (PAI > 2). The percentage was 2.2% for the-non-filled roots. The PAI value attributed to each category of teeth is shown in Table 3. The quality of root canal treatment is outlined in Table 4. Overall, 20.8% of the roots had acceptable root filling and 15.7% of these were associated with a PAI > 2. In the roots with unacceptable fillings, 73.3% had a normal periapical status. The most frequently root-filled teeth were the mandibular first molars (41.2%) and the maxillary first molars (34.2%), followed by the mandibular second molars (32.1%) and the maxillary second premolars (30.3%). There were 514 roots with posts (25.9% of the filled roots) (Table 5), and these were associated with a PAI > 2 in 28.6% of the cases. This was statistically different from the roots filled without a post ( P < 0.001, 2 ). 30.3% of the filled roots were associated with an intracoronal restoration with a PAI > 2 in 22.5% of the cases (Table 6); 59.6% exhibited an extra-coronal restoration associated in 23.7% of the cases with a periapical lesion. The remaining 10.1% of roots with no restoration were associated with a PAI > 2 in 33.3% of the cases. Root-filled roots without coronal restoration had significantly more periapical pathology compared to those with restorations ( P < 0.001, 2 ).

Presence absence of teeth and periapical status
Table 1. Presence/absence of teeth and periapical status.

There were 52 fractured instruments and four patients had undergone periapical surgery. Sixty-two per cent of the patients presented with at least one periapical lesion.
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the different scores of PAI expressed as percentages for the different categories cited.

Periapical status of root-filled and nonroot-filled teeth
Table 2. Periapical status of root-filled and nonroot-filled teeth.

Periapical status of-nonroot-filled and root-filled roots
Table 3. Periapical status of-nonroot-filled and root-filled roots.

Quality of root canal fillings
Table 4. Quality of root canal fillings.

Periapical status of roots with posts
Table 5. Periapical status of roots with posts.