Powtórne leczenie endodontyczno-rekonstrukcyjne – możliwości i ograniczenia | Magazyn Stomatologiczny

Dostęp do tego artykułu jest płatny.
Zapraszamy do zakupu!

Cena: 24.00 PLN (z VAT)

Po dokonaniu zakupu artykuł w postaci pliku PDF prześlemy bezpośrednio pod twój adres e-mail.

MS 2022; 9: 55-81.

CYKL
Część 4. Powtórne leczenie endodontyczno-rekonstrukcyjne – możliwości i ograniczenia

Part 4. Endodontic and reconstructive re-treatment, possibilities and limitations

Adam Romaniuk-Demonchaux

Streszczenie
Rekonstrukcja zębów wymagających powtórnego leczenia endodontyczno-rekonstrukcyjnego niejednokrotnie stanowi wyzwanie kliniczne ze względu na konieczność skorygowania wszelkich problemów, które przyczyniły się do niepowodzenia pierwotnego leczenia rekonstrukcyjno-endodontycznego. Za najmniej inwazyjną metodę postępowania po niepowodzeniu pierwotnego leczenia endodontycznego uznaje się powtórne leczenie metodą tradycyjną. Wedle dostępnego piśmiennictwa odsetek sukcesu jest stosunkowo wysoki, wynosi około 78% i w większości przypadków klinicznych powtórne leczenie metodą tradycyjną stanowi metodę z wyboru, umożliwiając uzyskanie dobrych wyników klinicznych w perspektywie długoczasowej.

Abstract
Tooth reconstruction requiring repeated endodontic-reconstructive treatment is often a clinical challenge due to the need to correct any problems that contributed to the failure of the primary reconstructive-endodontic treatment. The least invasive method of treatment after failure of the primary endodontic treatment is repeated treatment with the traditional method. According to the available literature, the success rate is relatively high, around 78%, and is in most clinical cases the method of choice, allowing for good clinical results in the long term.

Hasła indeksowe: powtórne leczenie endodontyczne, wskazania, przeciwwskazania, procedury kliniczne, rekonstrukcje zębów leczonych endodontycznie

Key words: endodontic re-treatment, indications, contraindications, clinical procedures, reconstruction of endodontically treated teeth

PIŚMIENNICTWO

Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S i wsp. Outcome of primary root canal treatment. Systematic review of the literature – part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J. 2007; 40(12): 921-939.
Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S i wsp. Outcome of primary root canal treatment. Systematic review of the literature – part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J. 2008; 41(1): 6-31.
Ricucci D, Siqueira JF Jr, Bate AL i wsp. Histologic investigation of root canal-treated teeth with apical periodontitis. A retrospective study from twenty-four patients. J Endod. 2009; 35(4): 493-502.
Torabinejad M, Corr R, Handysides R i wsp. Outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment and endodontic surgery. A systematic review. J Endod. 2009; 35(7): 930-937.
Imura N, Pinheiro ET, Gomes BP i wsp. The outcome of endodontic treatment. A retrospective study of 2000 cases performed by a specialist. J Endod. 2007; 33(11): 1278-1282.
Gorni FG, Gagliani MM. The outcome of endodontic retreatment. A 2-yr follow-up. J Endod. 2004; 30(1): 1-4.
Glossary of endodontic terms. 2016. American Association of Endodontists, [online:] http://www.aae.org/clinical- resources/aae-glossary-of-endodontic-terms.aspx [dostęp: 19.11.2018].
Kim S, Kratchman S. Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice. A review. J Endod. 2006; 32(7): 601-623.
AAE and AAOMR joint position statement. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics 2015 update. J Endod. 2015; 41(9): 1393-1396.
Ebrahimi Dastgurdi M, Khabiri M, Khademi A i wsp. Effect of post length and type of luting agent on the dislodging time of metallic prefabricated posts by using ultrasonic vibration. J Endod. 2013; 39(11): 1423-1427.
Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM i wsp. Ultrasonics in endodontics. A review of the literature. J Endod. 2007; 33(2): 81-95.
Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod. 2004; 30(12): 827-845.
Colaco AS, Pai VA. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of manual and rotary gutta-percha removal techniques. J Endod. 2015; 41(11): 1871-1874.
Wolcott J, Ishley D, Kennedy W i wsp. Clinical investigation of second mesiobuccal canals in endodontically treated and retreated maxillary molars. J Endod. 2002; 28(6): 477-479.
Briseño-Marroquín B, Paqué F, Maier K i wsp. Root canal morphology and configuration of 179 maxillary first molars by means of micro-computed tomography. An ex vivo study. J Endod. 2015; 41(12): 2008-2013.
Hiebert BM, Abramovitch K, Rice D i wsp. Prevalence of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary first molars detected using cone-beam computed tomography, direct occlusal access, and coronal plane grinding. J Endod. 2017; 43(10): 1711-1715.
Nosrat A, Deschenes RJ, Tordik PA i wsp. Middle mesial canals in mandibular molars. Incidence and related factors. J Endod. 2015; 41(1): 28-32.
Tahmasbi M, Jalali P, Nair MK i wsp. Prevalence of middle mesial canals and isthmi in the mesial root of mandibular molars. An in vivo cone-beam computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2017; 43(7): 1080-1083.
Terauchi Y, O’Leary L, Kikuchi I i wsp. Evaluation of the efficiency of a new file removal system in comparison with two conventional systems. J Endod. 2007; 33(5): 585-588.
Souter NJ, Messer HH. Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique. J Endod. 2005; 31(6): 450-452.
Tsesis I, Rosenberg E, Faivishevsky V i wsp. Prevalence and associated periodontal status of teeth with root perforation. A retrospective study of 2,002 patients’ medical records. J Endod. 2010; 36(5): 797-800.
Pontius V, Pontius O, Braun A i wsp. Retrospective evaluation of perforation repairs in 6 private practices. J Endod. 2013; 39(11): 1346-1358.
Torabinejad M, Parirokh M, Dummer PMH. Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements. An updated overview – part II. Other clinical applications and complications. Int Endod J. 2018; 51(3): 284-317.
Pace R, Giuliani V, Pagavino G. Mineral trioxide aggregate as repair material for furcal perforation. Case series. J Endod. 2008; 34(9): 1130-1133.
Iandolo A, Abdellatif D, Amato M i wsp. Dentinal tubule penetration and root canal cleanliness following ultrasonic activation of intracanal-heated sodium hypochlorite. Aust Endod J. 2020; 46(2): 204-209.
Retamozo B, Shabahang S, Johnson N i wsp. Minimum contact time and concentration of sodium hypochlorite required to eliminate Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2010; 36(3): 520-523.
Khalighinejad N, Aminoshariae A, Kulild JC i wsp. The effect of the dental operating microscope on the outcome of nonsurgical root canal treatment. A retrospective case-control study. J Endod. 2017; 43(5): 728-732.
Moreira MS, Anuar ASN, Tedesco TK i wsp. Endodontic treatment in single and multiple visits. An overview of systematic reviews. J Endod. 2017; 43(6): 864-870.
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment. Part 2. Tooth survival. Int Endod J. 2011; 44(7): 610-625.
AAE Special Committee to Develop a Microscope Position Paper. AAE position statement. Use of microscopes and other magnification techniques. J Endod. 2012; 38(8): 1153-1155.
Hannahan JP, Eleazer PD. Comparison of success of implants versus endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 2008; 34(11): 1302-1305.
Doyle SL, Hodges JS, Pesun IJ i wsp. Factors affecting outcomes for single-tooth implants and endodontic restorations. J Endod. 2007; 33(4): 399-402.
Setzer FC, Kim S. Comparison of long-term survival of implants and endodontically treated teeth. J Dent Res. 2014; 93(1): 19-26.