International endodontic journal · 2002
Periapical changes following root-canal treatment observed 20-27 years postoperatively.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Molven O, Halse A, Fristad I, MacDonald-Jankowski D
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of the present study was to identify periapical changes 20-27 years after root-canal treatment.
METHODOLOGY: The periapical condition of 265 roots filled by undergraduate students was evaluated in two series of intraoral radiographs taken 10-17 and 20-27 years after treatment. Roots (72) not recorded with a normal periapical situation on both occasions by two observers, were re-evaluated by other two examiners, separately and jointly. Final decisions about diagnoses were made by all four examiners. A strict definition was used for the identification of cases with an unfavourable outcome.
RESULTS: Favourable outcomes were observed in 6.4% of the roots that had radiolucencies at the 10-17-year follow-up. Periapical radiolucencies after 20-27 years appeared in 1.5% of all other roots. The radiographic failure frequency for the total material was 4.9%. The percentage of cases with normal periapical findings at the final follow-up was 86.4%, whilst 8.7% were recorded with increased width of the apical periodontal space. Delayed healing owing to surplus root-filling material explained nearly all of the cases with favourable outcome assessed many years after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Late periapical changes, with more successes than failures, were recorded when a 10-17-year follow-up period after root-canal treatment was extended for another 10 years.
METHODOLOGY: The periapical condition of 265 roots filled by undergraduate students was evaluated in two series of intraoral radiographs taken 10-17 and 20-27 years after treatment. Roots (72) not recorded with a normal periapical situation on both occasions by two observers, were re-evaluated by other two examiners, separately and jointly. Final decisions about diagnoses were made by all four examiners. A strict definition was used for the identification of cases with an unfavourable outcome.
RESULTS: Favourable outcomes were observed in 6.4% of the roots that had radiolucencies at the 10-17-year follow-up. Periapical radiolucencies after 20-27 years appeared in 1.5% of all other roots. The radiographic failure frequency for the total material was 4.9%. The percentage of cases with normal periapical findings at the final follow-up was 86.4%, whilst 8.7% were recorded with increased width of the apical periodontal space. Delayed healing owing to surplus root-filling material explained nearly all of the cases with favourable outcome assessed many years after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Late periapical changes, with more successes than failures, were recorded when a 10-17-year follow-up period after root-canal treatment was extended for another 10 years.