Journal of endodontics · 2017
Clinical Outcomes after Intentional Replantation of Periodontally Involved Teeth.
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.
Cho Sin-Yeon, Lee Seung-Jong, Kim Euiseong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Periodontal involvement has been thought to be a contraindication for intentional replantation. This retrospective study aimed to assess clinical outcomes after intentional replantation of teeth with periodontal involvement and to explore potential predictors of outcomes.
METHODS: Teeth with a history of intentional replantation between March 2000 and December 2014 and with 1 or 2 preoperative periodontal pockets ≥6 mm among 6 sites evaluated per tooth were included. A total of 103 teeth were included, and 74 teeth were followed up for more than 6 months. Outcomes were assessed as improved (a decrease in the number and depths of periodontal pockets and the size of periapical radiolucency and no external root resorption or sign/symptoms) or failed. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and a Cox proportional regression model.
RESULTS: Cumulative improved rates declined from 89% at 1 year to 68% at 4 years. A Cox proportional regression model identified the patient's age (P = .049; hazard ratio, 2.552) and the number of preoperative periodontal pockets with a depth ≥6 mm (P = .041; hazard ratio, 2.523) as predictors of outcomes in the replantation of periodontally involved teeth.
CONCLUSIONS: Periodontal involvement is not an absolute contraindication to intentional replantation. The teeth with 1 preoperative periodontal pocket ≥6 mm and the subjects aged ≤40 years had 2.5 times and 2.6 times lower probability of failure, respectively, than the teeth with 2 pockets and the subjects aged >40 years. Therefore, these factors need to be carefully considered for intentional replantation.
METHODS: Teeth with a history of intentional replantation between March 2000 and December 2014 and with 1 or 2 preoperative periodontal pockets ≥6 mm among 6 sites evaluated per tooth were included. A total of 103 teeth were included, and 74 teeth were followed up for more than 6 months. Outcomes were assessed as improved (a decrease in the number and depths of periodontal pockets and the size of periapical radiolucency and no external root resorption or sign/symptoms) or failed. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and a Cox proportional regression model.
RESULTS: Cumulative improved rates declined from 89% at 1 year to 68% at 4 years. A Cox proportional regression model identified the patient's age (P = .049; hazard ratio, 2.552) and the number of preoperative periodontal pockets with a depth ≥6 mm (P = .041; hazard ratio, 2.523) as predictors of outcomes in the replantation of periodontally involved teeth.
CONCLUSIONS: Periodontal involvement is not an absolute contraindication to intentional replantation. The teeth with 1 preoperative periodontal pocket ≥6 mm and the subjects aged ≤40 years had 2.5 times and 2.6 times lower probability of failure, respectively, than the teeth with 2 pockets and the subjects aged >40 years. Therefore, these factors need to be carefully considered for intentional replantation.