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 6  »  Radiographic evaluation of cases referred for surgical endodontics
Radiographic evaluation of cases referred for surgical endodontics
Results.



In 6 of the 300 patient ¢les collected, the primary radiograph was missing and 16 radiographs were of insu⁄- cient quality; this gave a ¢nal total of 278 radiographs. The results are shown inTables 3-9.
As judged on the available radiographs, the observers considered conventional root-canal treatment feasible in 40^80%of the cases (Table 3), referred for endodontic surgery. Signi¢cantly, the endodontist and general practitioner considered re-treatment feasible more frequently compared to the oral surgeon (P < 0.05). Tooth position did not in£uence this judgement (Table 4). The observers did not measure a correlation betweenthe size of the radiolucency and the indication for surgical treatment (Table 5).

Table 3. Percentage of cases referred for surgical endodontics in which nonsurgical endodontic (re-)treatment was considered feasible. Evaluated at T1 and T2 (at least 6 months later).

Percentage of cases referred for surgical endodontics in which nonsurgical endodontic retreatment was considered feasible

Table 4. Feasibility of nonsurgical (re-)treatment in relation to the type of tooth as considered during the first observation (T1).

Feasibility of nonsurgical retreatment in relation to the type of tooth as considered during the first observation

Table 5. Feasibility of nonsurgical (re-)treatment in relation to size of radiolucency as considered during the first observation (T1).

Feasibility of nonsurgical (re-)treatment in relation to size of radiolucency as considered during the first observation

Table 6. Assessment qualityof root-canal fillings of referred cases.

Assessment qualityof root-canal ?llings of referred cases

The inter- and intraobserver agreement for the various evaluation items are shown in Tables 6 and 7. As far as the interobserver agreement was concerned, a low level of agreement was observed for the feasibility to redo or improve the treatment and the presence of perforations observed in the radiograph.
The values for intraobserver agreement between observation periods are shown in Table 8; least agreement occurred when judging a perforation.
The question whether re-treatment was considered feasible is detailed in Table 9. It can be seen that signi¢- cantly more teeth (76%) were considered re-treatable from the population of the hospital in Groningen than those from the hospital in Haarlem (53%) with 66% for the cases of the Drachten hospital. As far as the regional di!erence was concerned, it appeared that in 71% of the cases fromthe northernregion hospitals (Groningen and Drachten) re-treatment was judged feasible, whereas this was the case in only 53% in the western region hospital in Haarlem.

Table 7. Interobserver agreement (Cohen's kappa) on evaluation criteria on the radiographs asmentioned in the checklist (Table 1) at the first observation.

Interobserver agreement on evaluation criteria on the radiographs asmentioned in the checklist at the first observation

Table 8. Intraobserver agreement of the topicsmentioned in the checklist (Table 1).

Intraobserver agreement of the topicsmentioned in the checklist

Table 9. Dilerences between hospitals and regionswith respect to feasibility of re-treatment.

Dilerences between hospitals and regionswith respect to feasibility of re-treatment
AZG+, AcademicHospitalGroningen;NSD,Ny SmellingheHospitalDrachten; KZH, KennemerHospitalHaarlem.
*Significant difference at 0.05 level.