Skip to main content

A follow-up study of pulpotomies and root canal treatments performed under general anaesthesia

Clinical Oral Investigations volume 18, pages 1155–1163 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

A previous study considered whether the proportions of clinically satisfactory root canal treatments (RCT) done under general anaesthesia (GA) or under local anaesthesia were equivalent, but the proportion of treatment with long-term satisfactory endodontic outcomes remains unknown. Moreover, no evaluation of pulpotomies performed under GA has been reported.

Materials and methods

From 614 endodontic treatments (ETs) performed on permanent teeth under GA, 225 [193 RCT and 32 pulpotomies (P)] were examined after follow-up periods of 1–6 months (71 cases), 6–24 months (77 cases) and over 2 years (77 cases). Changes in the periapical index between the treatment date (T0) and the control time (T1) allowed the treatment to be classified as “success,” “uncertain outcome” or “failure.” Explicative variables for success of ET were the duration of follow-up and tooth-related criteria expected to affect the outcomes of endodontic treatment.

Results

Overall, 87 % of ETs were scored as “success,” while 9 % were uncertain and 4 % were failures. There was no difference in the distribution of success in relation with the type of tooth, the pulpal status, the level of endodontic difficulty, the periapical status or the technical quality of RCT. The proportion of endodontic cases with high level of difficulties was higher in the P group than in the RCT group.

Conclusion

Longer follow-ups and higher numbers of cases are needed to analyse the factors affecting success and failure in endodontic treatments performed under GA.

Clinical relevance

The relatively high rates of success of pulpotomies and RCT support undertaking endodontic treatment under GA.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Alsaleh I, Cousson P-Y, Nicolas E, Hennequin M (2012) Is endodontic treatment performed under general anaesthesia technically acceptable? Clin Oral Invest 16:1599–1606. doi:10.1007/s00784-011-0663-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. European Society of Endodontology (2006) Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 39:921–930. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01180.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lupi-Pegurier L, Bertrand M-F, Muller-Bolla M, Rocca JP, Bolla M (2002) Periapical status, prevalence and quality of endodontic treatment in an adult French population. Int Endod J 35:690–697. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00547.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Huumonen S, Ørstavik D (2013) Radiographic follow-up of periapical status after endodontic treatment of teeth with and without apical periodontitis. Clin Oral Invest: 1–6. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-0926-2

  5. Wu M-K, Wesselink P, Shemesh H (2011) New terms for categorizing the outcome of root canal treatment. Int Endod J 44:1079–1080. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01954.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Messer HH, Yu VSH (2013) Terminology of endodontic outcomes. Int Endod J 46:289–291. doi:10.1111/iej.12014

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Orstavik D, Kerekes K, Eriksen HM (1986) The periapical index: a scoring system for radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Endod Dent Traumatol 2:20–34

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon DS (1999) Endodontic case difficulty assessment: the team approach. Gen Dent 47:340–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ricucci D, Russo J, Rutberg M, Burleson JA, Spångberg LSW (2011) A prospective cohort study of endodontic treatments of 1,369 root canals: results after 5 years. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112:825–842. doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.08.003

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Imura N, Pinheiro et, Gomes BPFA, Zaia AA, Ferraz CCR et al (2007) The outcome of endodontic treatment: a retrospective study of 2000 cases performed by a specialist. J Endod 33:1278–1282. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2007.07.018

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Quadros ID, Gomes BPFA, Zaia AA, Ferraz CCR, Souza-Filho FJ (2005) Evaluation of endodontic treatments performed by students in a Brazilian Dental School. J Dent Educ 69:1161–1170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedman S, Löst C, Zarrabian M, Trope M (1995) Evaluation of success and failure after endodontic therapy using a glass ionomer cement sealer. J Endod 21:384–390. doi:10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80976-3

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Friedman S, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP (2003) Treatment outcome in endodontics: The Toronto Study. Phase 1: initial treatment. J Endod 29:787–793. doi:10.1097/00004770-200312000-00001

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoskinson SE, Ng Y-L, Hoskinson AE, Moles DR, Gulabivala K (2002) A retrospective comparison of outcome of root canal treatment using two different protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93:705–715. doi:10.1067/moe.2001.122822

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Peak JD, Hayes SJ, Bryant ST, Dummer PM (2001) The outcome of root canal treatment. A retrospective study within the armed forces (Royal Air Force). Br Dent J 190:140–144. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4800907a

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Simon S, Perard M, Zanini M, Smith AJ, Charpentier E et al (2013) Should pulp chamber pulpotomy be seen as a permanent treatment? Some preliminary thoughts. Int Endod J 46:79–87. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02113.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Ghoddusi J, Yazdani S (2013) One-year results of vital pulp therapy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis: an ongoing multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 17:431–439. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0712-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Patel S (2009) New dimensions in endodontic imaging: Part 2. Cone beam computed tomography. Int Endod J 42:463–475. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01531.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu M-K, Shemesh H, Wesselink PR (2009) Limitations of previously published systematic reviews evaluating the outcome of endodontic treatment. Int Endod J 42:656–666. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01600.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel S, Wilson R, Dawood A, Foschi F, Mannocci F (2012) The detection of periapical pathosis using digital periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography—Part 2: a 1-year post-treatment follow-up. Int Endod J 45:711–723. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02076.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Durack C, Patel S (2012) Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Braz Dent J 23:179–191. doi:10.1590/S0103-64402012000300001

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. de Paula-Silva FWG, Wu M-K, Leonardo MR, Bezerra da Silva LA, Wesselink PR (2009) Accuracy of periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography scans in diagnosing apical periodontitis using histopathological findings as a gold standard. J Endod 35:1009–1012. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.006

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors specially thank Drs. Denise Faulks and Valérie Collado for their valuable help collecting long-term postoperative radiographs in patients who were examined under nitrous oxide or midazolam sedation. Dr. Laurent Vallet and Dr. Christian Monteillard are acknowledged for their precious collaboration as anaesthetists. The authors would like to thank Prof. Paul Riordan (Write2Publish; http://correction-home.fr) for correction of the English manuscript. The first author of this paper received a prize for this study from the European Society for Endodontics during the Congress of the French Society for Endodontics in Lyon, France 2011. The study was self-funded by the authors and their institutions, the University of Auvergne, Clermont 1 and CHU of Clermont-Ferrand.

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. CROC-EA 4847, Clermont Université, Université d’Auvergne, BP 10448, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Pierre-Yves Cousson, Emmanuel Nicolas & Martine Hennequin

  2. Service d’Odontologie, Unité Fonctionnelle de soins spécifiques, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 63003, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Pierre-Yves Cousson, Emmanuel Nicolas & Martine Hennequin

  3. Service de Chirurgie Ambulatoire, CH Guy Thomas, 63200, Riom, France

    Martine Hennequin

  4. Dental Faculty, CROC-EA 4847, 11 Boulevard Charles de Gaulle, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Martine Hennequin

Authors
  1. Pierre-Yves Cousson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel Nicolas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martine Hennequin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martine Hennequin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cousson, PY., Nicolas, E. & Hennequin, M. A follow-up study of pulpotomies and root canal treatments performed under general anaesthesia. Clin Oral Invest 18, 1155–1163 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1090-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1090-4

Keywords

  • Endodontics
  • Follow-up
  • General anaesthesia
  • Pulpotomy
  • Root canal treatment