ArticlePDF Available

Prevalence of different reasons for a tooth to undergo root canal retreatment

Authors:
  • SAVEETHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL AND TECHNICAL SCIENCES
  • Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences

Abstract and Figures

Dental caries is the most common dental disease which has made non-surgical root canal treatment prevalent. However, a considerable number of cases undergo failure of root canal therapy and report to the dental operatory for retreatment. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of different reasons to undergo root canal retreatment. A total of 269 teeth were analyzed for possible reasons for retreatment from dental archives with the study period. The inclusion criteria included that the patient should have been treated in Saveetha Dental College and should have undergone root canal retreatment within the study period. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS by IBM version 20. From the present study, it was evident that the most common reason is incomplete obturation (54.6%) the most common tooth to undergo root canal retreatment is 21 (12.6%) Further studies and programmes are to be carried out to bring about more knowledge and prevent the occurrence of failure of root canal therapy prevalence of different reasons for a tooth to undergo root canal retreatment.
Content may be subject to copyright.
            
 
    
 
          
Prevalence of different reasons for a tooth to undergo root canal
retreatment
       
          
          
Article History:
    
    
    
Keywords:


 


           
         
            
           
            
          
           
           
         
             
          
           
            
           
        
 
  

 
 
 
   

  |  
INTRODUCTION
       
     et al. 
        
        
       
  et al.      
    
        
     
       
     
       
       
        
et al.
       
       
       
        
       
      
        
et al.      
        
      
       
      
        
       
    
        
 
        
            
      
        
       
   et al.
     
       
      
    
       
   et al.  
       
      
      
       
         
     et al.
   et al.
 et al.    
         
   et al. 
 et al.
        
       
     
MATERIALS AND METHODS
     
        
       
     
        
      
       
 
         
        
       
      
        
        
       
         
     
        
      
      
        
     
      
      
       
       
    
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
      
        
     
      
      
      
        
   
Figure 1: Bar Graph shows the distribution of
different reasons for a tooth to undergo
retreatment with the reason in the x-axis and
number of patients in the y-axis.
       
     
      
       
        
     
Figure 2: Bar Graph Shows Distribution of
Different Genders Reporting for Root Canal
Retreatment with gender.
       
        
        
            
Table 1: Different teeth to undergo root canal retreatment
 
     
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
   
       
       
         
       
        
        
       
       
       
       
  
        
      
        
      
       
     
      
       
        
       
      
         
       
        
       
        
    

         
       
      
       
        
  et al.   
       
        
            
      
    
     
      
       

Figure 3: Bar Graph shows the distribution of
Different teeth to undergo root canal
retreatment with the tooth number in the x-axis
and the number of teeth in they axis
       
       
    
      
          
      
        
        
      
  
Figure 4: Bar Graph shows association between
different reasons for retreatment with different
ages.
      
      
       
       
    
     
      
       
     
      
     
     
      
    
     
     
      
         

       
        
        
       
et al.      
       
     
   et al. 
       
    
      
       
        
      et al.
       
      
      
         
        
      
  
       
       
         
          
     
et al.       
          
       
        
 
        
       
         
        et al.
      
       
        
        
            
      
        
       
        
        
   et al.   
      
 
        
    et al.
        
       
      
       
       
         
        
       
   et al.      
       
       
       
        
       
       

CONCLUSIONS
        
       
        
        
       
     
Conlict of Interest
        
   
Funding Support
        
   
REFERENCES
  et al.     
     
  International Endodontic Journal

         
      
      
    Journal of Dentistry

       
     
     
 Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technol-
ogy 
   et al.      
       Archives of
Oral Biology 
       
    
     
    Caries
Research 
       
     
 Journal of Endodontics 
  et al.    
    Endodontic Topics

  et al.      
      
Nepal Medical College journal: NMCJ 

       
     Jour-
nal of Endodontics 
  et al.     
     
International Journal of Dentistry 
  et al.     
       
     Journal of
Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Den-
tistry 
  et al.      
   Dental Traumatology

  et al.     
      
        
        Brazilian
Dental Science 
  et al.     
     Saudi
Endodontic Journal. go.gale.com 
  et al.    
       
      The
Open Dentistry Journal 
        
      
      Interna-
        
            
tional Endodontic Journal 
         
  Research Journal of Phar-
macy and Technology 
  et al.     
      
 American Journal of dentistry 

   et al.   
    Journal of
Endodontics 
         
      
      
    
 Indian Journal of Dental Research

        
     Journal
of Endodontics 
      
        
      
  Journal of Conservative Den-
tistry 
  et al.     
     
      
     Jour-
nal of Conservative Dentistry 
        
   Research Journal of Phar-
macy and Technology 
        
      
       
   BMC Oral Health 
     
     
      

      
    Oral Pathology

      
         
   Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

  et al.   
       
       
   
      Pesquisa
Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada

  et al.   
      
      
     Australian
Endodontic Journal 
     
     
     
   The Journal of Contemporary Dental
Practice 
  et al.    
    
    Journal of Conservative
Dentistry 
     
      
Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology

       
 Journal of Endodontics 

      
     
     
  Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD

         
 Saudi Endodontic Journal. Medknow Publica-
tions and Media Pvt. Ltd 
         
  Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral
Pathology 
        
    Endodon-
tic Topics 
      
     
   Journal of endodon-
tics 
  et al.      
     
     Journal
of endodontics 
     
  Dental Clinics of North America

        
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Dental trauma is one of the most commonly seen injuries involving teeth and surrounding structures. The frequent causes of dental trauma are usually falls, traffic accidents, fights and sports injuries. Rapid treatment can prevent long-term damage to the orofacial structures and save the teeth. Ellis class 2 fracture is classified as the involvement of enamel and dentin excluding pulp. Dental practitioners are used to treating Ellis class 2 fracture very often in their dental practice and is usually considered as a dilemma among dental practitioners for the different treatment modalities followed for treatment of Ellis class 2 fracture. A survey is done among dental practitioners to assess the different treatment modalities followed by them in the case of Ellis class 2 fracture. Materials and Methods A survey was done among 380 dental practitioners in the Chennai region in which 360 dental practitioners responded. The survey was distributed through electronic media and other means of communication. The survey data was collected, analysed and interpreted. Results The results suggested that about 90% of dental practitioners had adequate knowledge and attitude towards the management of dental traumatic injuries. However, the practical application of the different treatment modalities was seen to be varied among dental practitioners. Based on this survey it was clear that majority of the dental practitioners in Chennai have good knowledge, attitude but there was a lack of clinical practice regarding the different treatment modalities followed by general practitioners for Ellis class 2 fracture. Conclusion The survey shows that dental practitioners have a sound knowledge, attitude, but the practical application of the various treatment modalities available was seen to vary among various dental practitioners for Ellis class 2 fracture.
Article
Full-text available
Background: the efficiency of the diagnostic aids plays an important role in the treatment plan. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of dental pulse oximeter with a customized sensor holder, thermal test and electric pulp tester in assessing the actual pulp status and to evaluate the oxygen saturation level in control healthy teeth, non-vital and teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Material and methods: thirty-seven single canal teeth requiring endodontic therapy were included in the study. The selected teeth were tested with dental pulse oximeter, electric pulp test, cold spray, and heated gutta percha stick. Between each test a time lag of 2 minutes was allowed for the central sensitization to occur. Three blinded operators were involved in the study. The actual status of the pulp was evaluated after the initiation of endodontic treatment. To assess the actual pulp status direct visual examination of access cavity as performed. The data was statistically analysed using (ANOVA) Analysis of Variance and Post-hoc Tukey test. Results: sensitivity of pulse oximeter, heat test, cold and electric pulp test, was 100, 25, 50, and 12, respectively. The specificity of these tests was 100, 72 81, and 77, respectively. The ANOVA showed that there was statistical difference between all the groups (p=0.0005). Post-Hoc Tukey revealed that there was statistical difference among all the groups, nonvital group (p=0.0005), control group (p=0.01) and for irreversible pulpitis (p=0.01). The overall diagnostic accuracy of pulse oximeter was 100% followed by cold test 66%, heat test to be 49% and electric pulp test to be 45%. Conclusion: the custom-made holder used in the present study aided in providing accurate response for pulp vitality testing. In this study the diagnostic accuracy was high with dental pulse oximeter followed by cold, heat and the least was electric pulp tester in different pulpal conditions.
Article
Full-text available
Dental avulsion is considered as one of the most severe types of traumatic tooth injuries because it causes damage to several structures and results in the complete displacement of the tooth from its socket in the alveolar bone. The ideal situation is to replant the tooth immediately after avulsion because the extra oral time is an important determinant for the success of the treatment and for a good prognosis. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the recommended natural storage m to store and transport avulsed tooth based on the survival capacity of periodontal ligament cells.This paper reviews the different storage media that have been evaluated for avulsed teeth based on full-length research papers retrieved from PubMed/Medline, Lilacs, BBO and SciELO electronic databases using the key words ‘storage medium’, ‘avulsion’, ‘tooth avulsion’, ‘replantation’, ‘tooth replantation’, ‘milk’ and ‘propolis’. Based on the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, About 14 papers have been selected and critically reviewed with respect to the characteristics, efficacy and ease of access of the storage media. The review of this study shows and includes a wide array of wet storage media that have been evaluated in laboratory-based studies on PDL cells found on adult permanent teeth. Among the natural products other than milk, propolis, coconut water, green tea extract, egg white, green tea extract, Alovera gel, pomegranate juice, salvia officinalis followed by dragon blood sap (Croton Lechleri) were recommended based on the cell viability and its longevity. In an emergency, it is important for dentists to consider the circumstances of the accident, the location and suggest an appropriate transport media.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: To evaluate and compare the remineralization potential of a dentifrice containing bioactive glass and a topical cream containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) in remineralizing artificial carious lesion on enamel. Material and Methods: Forty-five freshly extracted human permanent premolar teeth were selected. Samples were divided into three groups: GI - regular tooth paste without specific remineralizing agent; GII - tooth paste containing calcium sodium-phosphosilicate (novamin) and GIII - topical cream containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate. All the sound enamel samples were viewed under scanning electron microscope (SEM) to assess the topographical pictures of enamel surface and energy dispersing x-ray analysis (EDAX) was done to estimate quantitatively the amounts of mineral (calcium and phosphorous). The mineral content of calcium and phosphorus after demineralization in each group was noted. The samples were then subjected to SEM and EDAX. Results: GI does not show any increase in the calcium and phosphorus after applying toothpaste without any remineralizing agent but GII and GIII showed a net increase in calcium and phosphorous values after applying concern-remineralizing agents. Inter group comparison showed GIII yield higher net calcium and phosphorous values than GII. Conclusion: Two remineralizing agents showed remineralization potential on enamel surfaces. Casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate showed better remineralizing potential than calcium sodium phosphosilicate. Hence CPP-ACP can be considered as the material of choice in remineralizing early enamel carious lesions.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) play a significant role in the efficient tissue turnover and remodeling. This study focuses on the regulation of the MMPs by the protein kinases at the level of gene expression and their signaling pathways. Materials and Methods Lipopolysaccharide-induced murine macrophage-like RAW 264.7 cell lines were obtained and maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium plus 10% fetal bovine serum under optimal temperatures. Primers used were MMP-3 forward primer, MMP-3 reverse primer, and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase forward primer and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate reverse primer. Total RNA was isolated, the sample was prepared, and electrophoresis was performed. The first strand of cDNA was synthesized and amplification of specific isolated gene using polymerase chain reactor (PCR). The amplified products were then separated on a 1.0% agarose gel in 1XTBE at 75 V for 3 h. The gel was stained with ethidium bromide, and the amplified product was visualized and photographed on Gel Doc system. Results Real-time PCR showed only bands at expected size of 595 bp for internal control amplification of glyceraldehyde-3-dehydrogenase gene. Analysis was done with densitometry, and these values are compared with the negative control. Results showed a statistically significant rise in the relative levels of MMP-3-mRNA when compared with negative control at 1, 2, and 3 h. Conclusion This study proved the significantly increased levels of MMP gene at different period, thereby it can be concluded that MMP-3 levels are higher in inflammatory conditions.
Article
Full-text available
Pulp canal obliteration occurs commonly following traumatic injuries to teeth. Dental trauma to the permanent dentition can lead to clinical complications and its management may considerably challenge a practitioner. One such complication is Calcific Metamorphosis (CM) which can complicate entry in to the root canal system in the future due to difficulty in accessing the canal. It is the Calcific deposits of the pulp chamber that causes the darker hue, translucency loss and the yellowish appearance of the tooth’s crown. Locating the canal and negotiating it to full working length may lead to iatrogenic errors such as fractured instrument and perforation. It is characterised by the deposition of hard tissue within the root canal space and a yellow discolouration of the crown. The affected teeth do not always react to sensibility tests for some time. Teeth undergoing pulpal obliteration are generally asymptomatic. The negotiation of small calcified canals is challenging.
Article
Introduction The interaction between chlorhexidine (CHX) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) yields a thick precipitate capable of occluding dentinal tubules. Previous studies are unclear as to the above-mentioned precipitate contains para-chloroaniline (PCA) or not. PCA is a known toxic and carcinogenic compound which may lead to methemoglobinemia in humans. Aim This study aims to evaluate the precipitate formed on combination of different irrigants, weigh the amount of precipitate formed and to analyze the precipitate for PCA by using thin layer chromatography (TLC), high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), column chromatography (CC), electron spray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS), Ultraviolet (UV), and nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR and C-13 NMR). Materials and Methods Four different irrigants namely 2% CHX gluconate, 3% NaOCl, 5% neem and 5% tulsi were taken in different test tubes. Group 1, 2 and 3 included 1 ml 2% CHX combined with 1 ml each of 3% NaOCl, 5% neem and 5% tulsi. Group 4 and 5 comprised of 1 ml 3% NaOCl in combination with 1 ml 5% each of neem and tulsi. Finally, group 6 constituted 1 ml 5% neem mixed with 1 ml 5% tulsi. Each group was observed for 2 min for the formation of any precipitate, and the formed precipitate was weighed and analyzed using 1H-NMR and C-13 NMR, TLC, CC, HPLC, ESI-MS, and UV. Statistical Analysis One-way ANOVA and Post hoc–Tukey test were used. Results Presence of PCA was detected in group 1 (CHX + NaOCl), group 2 (CHX + neem) and group 3 (CHX + tusli) in all the sensitive methods employed. Conclusion The presence of PCA in precipitate was confirmed by TLC, CC, HPLC, ESI-MS, and UV. Based on the results of the present study, we assume that components in CHX are responsible for precipitate formation which contains PCA as well. Extrusion of precipitate beyond the apex may cause periapical tissue damage and delay wound healing at the same time.
Article
Background: Removal of the microbial organisms from the root canal system is a prerequisite for the successful outcome of any root canal treatment. Use of an effective intracanal medicament will assist in the disinfection of the root canal system. Intracanal medicaments have been used to disinfect root canals between appointments and reduce interappointment pain. Materials and methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and awareness about the principal choice of intracanal medicaments among general dental practitioners and nonendodontic specialists. The questionnaire consisted of 11 questions related to intracanal medicaments in Endodontics. It was distributed to 75 general dental practitioners and 75 other specialists (nonendodontists). Results: In the present study, the authors observed that the knowledge level among the study participants was moderately satisfying. However, the need for more education of the dentists with regard to the intracanal medicaments was perceived. Discussion: Correct knowledge of intracanal medicaments would help the practitioners to decide the apt material of choice as intracanal medicaments in different clinical situations. Conclusion: The present study highlighted the need for more continuing dental education programs with active participation of general practitioners and nonendodontic specialists to update themselves.