Journal of Endodontics
Volume 30, Issue 8 , Pages 577-581, August 2004

Root Canal Treatment in a Population-Based Adult Sample: Status of Teeth After Endodontic Treatment

Drs. Tilashalski and Boykin are associate professors, and Dr. Gilbert is professor and chair, Department of Diagnostic Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. Dr. Shelton is associate professor, Departments of Internal Medicine & Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY.

The purpose of this study was to quantify treatment outcomes of endodontically treated teeth, in a representative, population-based adult sample. The “Florida Dental Care Study” was a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study of 873 subjects who had at least one tooth at baseline and who were 45 yr or older. An in-person interview and clinical examination were conducted at baseline, 24 months, and 48 months after baseline, with 6-monthly telephone interviews between those times. Dental record information was abstracted afterward. Seventy-five teeth had conventional root-canal therapy (RCT) performed and met the inclusion criteria of 1-yr of follow-up or extraction. The mean duration of follow-up after RCT was 24.8 months. The mean (SD) attachment loss (AL) on teeth receiving RCT was only 3.3 (1.4) mm. Permanent restorations were placed in 79% of teeth a mean of 4.4 months after the RCT. However, 12% of teeth did not have any restorative treatment after RCT. After RCT had been completed, 81% of teeth were retained and 19% were ultimately extracted. Taken as a whole, this community-based study of a representative sample of adults suggests a higher failure rate than reported from studies in highly controlled environments or insured populations. It also suggests that the length of time to initial restoration of RCT-treated teeth is less than optimal. RCT was almost never performed on teeth with advanced periodontal attachment loss.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 20.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by NIH DE-11020 and DE-14164.Opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the university or the National Institutes of Health. The informed consent of all human subjects who participated in this investigation was obtained after the nature of the procedures had been explained fully.Address requests for reprints to Dr. Ken R. Tilashalski, Associate Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham, UAB School of Dentistry, 1530 3rd Avenue South, SDB 113, Birmingham, AL 35294-0007. e-mail: drt@uab.edu.

PII: S0099-2399(05)60239-7

doi:10.1097/01.DON.0000125874.80753.F3

Journal of Endodontics
Volume 30, Issue 8 , Pages 577-581, August 2004