Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Apical Surgery: A Clinical Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endodontic treatment is usually indicated when teeth with periapical lesions are encountered. However, sometimes root canal treatment results in failure. In that case, one of the treatment choices is retreatment by an orthograde approach. Surgical endodontic therapy is also an alternative to preserve the tooth. Various techniques have been suggested in the literature which has more predictable results. The introduction of modern surgical techniques have enhanced the results of apical surgery procedures. Operating microscopes, magnifying loupes, microinstruments, ultrasonic tips, and biologically acceptable root-end filling materials (such as MTA and SuperEBA) have been introduced to this field with the modern technique, thus the success rates of modern apical surgery has increased significantly.

Objective

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes and periotest values of apical surgery treatment.

Methods

A total of 112 teeth were included. SuperEBA and MTA were used as root-filling materials. The recorded parameters were gender, age, location of the tooth, the presence/absence of a post, coronal restoration of the tooth, previous surgical/nonsurgical treatment of the tooth, the size of periapical lesions, histopathology of periapical lesions, smoking habits. Also the periotest values were recorded.

Results

The overall success rate was 88.4%. With regard to the evaluated variables, only one parameter (tooth type) was found statistically significant. Although the periotest values were decreased after 6 months compared to immediately postoperative measurements, the values were still significantly higher than preoperative measurements.

Conclusion

In this study, apical surgery performed with the modern instruments has significantly successful results with 88.4% success rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shahi S, Rahimi S, Yavari HR, Shakouie S, Nezafati S, Abdolrahimi M (2007) Sealing ability of white and gray mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with distilled water and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate when used as root-end filling materials. J Endod 33:1429–1432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pecora CN, Baskaradoss JK, Al-Sharif A, Al-Rejaie M, Mokhlis H, Al-Fouzan K et al (2015) Histological evaluation of the root apices of failed endodontic cases. Saudi Endod J 5:120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Siqueira J (2001) Aetiology of root canal treatment failure: why well-treated teeth can fail. Int Endod J 34:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Setzer FC, Kohli MR, Shah SB, Karabucak B, Kim S (2012) Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature—part 2: comparison of endodontic microsurgical techniques with and without the use of higher magnification. J Endod 38:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abu-Melha AS (2012) Root amputation and bone grafting of failed apicoectomy of mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molar. Saudi Endod J 2:147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Setzer FC, Shah SB, Kohli MR, Karabucak B, Kim S (2010) Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature—part 1: comparison of traditional root-end surgery and endodontic microsurgery. J Endod 36:1757–1765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu Z, Zhang D, Li Q, Xu Q (2013) Evaluation of root-end preparation with a new ultrasonic tip. J Endod 39:820–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Song M, Kim E (2012) A prospective randomized controlled study of mineral trioxide aggregate and super ethoxy–benzoic acid as root-end filling materials in endodontic microsurgery. J Endod 38:875–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schulte W, d’Hoedt B, Lukas D, Maunz M, Steppeler M (1992) Periotest for measuring periodontal characteristics–correlation with periodontal bone loss. J Periodontal Res 27:184–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rud J, Andreasen J, Jensen JM (1972) Radiographic criteria for the assessment of healing after endodontic surgery. Int J Oral Surg 1:195–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Friedman S (2005) The prognosis and expected outcome of apical surgery. Endodontic Topics 11:219–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Serrano-Giménez M, Sánchez-Torres A, Gay-Escoda C (2015) Prognostic factors on periapical surgery: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 20:e715

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lui J-N, Khin M-M, Krishnaswamy G, Chen N-N (2014) Prognostic Factors Relating to the Outcome of Endodontic Microsurgery. J Endod 40:1071–1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Çalışkan M, Tekin U, Kaval M, Solmaz M (2016) The outcome of apical microsurgery using MTA as the root-end filling material: 2-to 6-year follow-up study. Int Endod J 49:245–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. von Arx T, Penarrocha M, Jensen S (2010) Prognostic factors in apical surgery with root-end filling: a meta-analysis. J Endod 36:957–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Song M, Jung I-Y, Lee S-J, Lee C-Y, Kim E (2011) Prognostic factors for clinical outcomes in endodontic microsurgery: a retrospective study. J Endod 37:927–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Song M, Kim SG, Lee S-J, Kim B, Kim E (2013) Prognostic factors of clinical outcomes in endodontic microsurgery: a prospective study. J Endod 39:1491–1497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kreisler M, Gockel R, Aubell-Falkenberg S, Kreisler T, Weihe C, Filippi A et al (2013) Clinical outcome in periradicular surgery: effect of patient- and tooth-related factors—a multicenter study. Quintessence Int 44(1):53–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. von Arx T, Jensen SS, Hänni S, Friedman S (2012) Five-year longitudinal assessment of the prognosis of apical microsurgery. J Endod 38:570–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Atsumi M, Park S-H, Wang H-L (2007) Methods used to assess implant stability: current status. Int JOMI 22:743–754

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsesis I, Rosen E, Schwartz-Arad D, Fuss Z (2006) Retrospective evaluation of surgical endodontic treatment: traditional versus modern technique. J Endod 32:412–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. von Arx T, Jensen SS, Hänni S (2007) Clinical and radiographic assessment of various predictors for healing outcome 1 year after periapical surgery. J Endod 33:123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Peñarrocha M, Martí E, García B, Gay C (2007) Relationship of periapical lesion radiologic size, apical resection, and retrograde filling with the prognosis of periapical surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:1526–1529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Testori T, Capelli M, Milani S, Weinsteind RL (1999) Success and failure in periradicular surgeryA longitudinal retrospective analysis. JOOO 87:493–498

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gagliani M, Gorni F, Strohmenger L (2005) Periapical resurgery versus periapical surgery: a 5-year longitudinal comparison. Int Endod J 38:320–327

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Song M, Shin S-J, Kim E (2011) Outcomes of endodontic micro-resurgery: a prospective clinical study. J Endod 37:316–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wälivaara D-Å, Abrahamsson P, Fogelin M, Isaksson S (2011) Super-EBA and IRM as root-end fillings in periapical surgery with ultrasonic preparation: a prospective randomized clinical study of 206 consecutive teeth. JOOO 112:258–263

    Google Scholar 

  28. Maddalone M, Gagliani M (2003) Periapical endodontic surgery: a 3 year follow up study. Int Endod J 36:193–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kramer IR, Pindborg JJ, Shear M (1992) Histological typing of odontogenic tumours. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Rubinstein RA, Kim S (1999) Short-term observation of the results of endodontic surgery with the use of a surgical operation microscope and Super-EBA as root-end filling material. J Endod 25:43–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, 82. Street 06510, Emek, Ankara, Turkey

    Faruk Öğütlü & İnci Karaca

Authors
  1. Faruk Öğütlü
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. İnci Karaca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to İnci Karaca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Öğütlü, F., Karaca, İ. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Apical Surgery: A Clinical Study. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 17, 75–83 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1008-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-017-1008-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation