Outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed by a modern technique: An updated meta-analysis of the literature

Igor Tsesis, Eyal Rosen, Silvio Taschieri, Yoel Telishevsky Strauss, Valentina Ceresoli, Massimo Del Fabbro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

92 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Numerous studies on outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment have been published to date. However, study designs, treatment protocols, follow-up periods, and inclusion and exclusion criteria have been extremely heterogeneous. Thus, inconsistent and confounding results have been reported. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to assess the outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed using a modern technique, and to evaluate factors potentially influencing the outcome. Methods: Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were adopted in order to identify randomized clinical trials, controlled trials, and prospective case series that studied surgical endodontic treatments. Treatment success rates were pooled, and the effect of various factors on treatment outcomes was evaluated. Results: In a follow-up of 1 year postoperatively, a successful outcome was achieved in 89.0% of patients. The outcomes obtained in studies using an operative microscope versus an endoscope were not significantly different, but both magnification devices were associated with significantly better outcomes than loupes. The use of MTA and of an operative microscope was associated with better outcomes compared with other retrofilling materials or magnification devices, respectively. Conclusions: Surgical endodontic treatment performed in a modern technique is a viable treatment option. The type of retrofilling material and magnification device may affect the outcome. Additional large-scale prospective clinical studies are needed to further evaluate possible predictors of success and failure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)332-339
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Endodontics
Volume39
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2013

Fingerprint

Endodontics
Meta-Analysis
Equipment and Supplies
Pemetrexed
Therapeutics
Endoscopes
Clinical Protocols
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Meta-analysis
  • modern technique
  • surgical endodontic treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed by a modern technique : An updated meta-analysis of the literature. / Tsesis, Igor; Rosen, Eyal; Taschieri, Silvio; Telishevsky Strauss, Yoel; Ceresoli, Valentina; Del Fabbro, Massimo.

In: Journal of Endodontics, Vol. 39, No. 3, 03.2013, p. 332-339.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tsesis, Igor ; Rosen, Eyal ; Taschieri, Silvio ; Telishevsky Strauss, Yoel ; Ceresoli, Valentina ; Del Fabbro, Massimo. / Outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed by a modern technique : An updated meta-analysis of the literature. In: Journal of Endodontics. 2013 ; Vol. 39, No. 3. pp. 332-339.
@article{8ea5e3b005a54009adf792b921268313,
title = "Outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed by a modern technique: An updated meta-analysis of the literature",
abstract = "Introduction: Numerous studies on outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment have been published to date. However, study designs, treatment protocols, follow-up periods, and inclusion and exclusion criteria have been extremely heterogeneous. Thus, inconsistent and confounding results have been reported. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to assess the outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed using a modern technique, and to evaluate factors potentially influencing the outcome. Methods: Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were adopted in order to identify randomized clinical trials, controlled trials, and prospective case series that studied surgical endodontic treatments. Treatment success rates were pooled, and the effect of various factors on treatment outcomes was evaluated. Results: In a follow-up of 1 year postoperatively, a successful outcome was achieved in 89.0{\%} of patients. The outcomes obtained in studies using an operative microscope versus an endoscope were not significantly different, but both magnification devices were associated with significantly better outcomes than loupes. The use of MTA and of an operative microscope was associated with better outcomes compared with other retrofilling materials or magnification devices, respectively. Conclusions: Surgical endodontic treatment performed in a modern technique is a viable treatment option. The type of retrofilling material and magnification device may affect the outcome. Additional large-scale prospective clinical studies are needed to further evaluate possible predictors of success and failure.",
keywords = "Meta-analysis, modern technique, surgical endodontic treatment",
author = "Igor Tsesis and Eyal Rosen and Silvio Taschieri and {Telishevsky Strauss}, Yoel and Valentina Ceresoli and {Del Fabbro}, Massimo",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.044",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "332--339",
journal = "Journal of Endodontics",
issn = "0099-2399",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed by a modern technique

T2 - An updated meta-analysis of the literature

AU - Tsesis, Igor

AU - Rosen, Eyal

AU - Taschieri, Silvio

AU - Telishevsky Strauss, Yoel

AU - Ceresoli, Valentina

AU - Del Fabbro, Massimo

PY - 2013/3

Y1 - 2013/3

N2 - Introduction: Numerous studies on outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment have been published to date. However, study designs, treatment protocols, follow-up periods, and inclusion and exclusion criteria have been extremely heterogeneous. Thus, inconsistent and confounding results have been reported. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to assess the outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed using a modern technique, and to evaluate factors potentially influencing the outcome. Methods: Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were adopted in order to identify randomized clinical trials, controlled trials, and prospective case series that studied surgical endodontic treatments. Treatment success rates were pooled, and the effect of various factors on treatment outcomes was evaluated. Results: In a follow-up of 1 year postoperatively, a successful outcome was achieved in 89.0% of patients. The outcomes obtained in studies using an operative microscope versus an endoscope were not significantly different, but both magnification devices were associated with significantly better outcomes than loupes. The use of MTA and of an operative microscope was associated with better outcomes compared with other retrofilling materials or magnification devices, respectively. Conclusions: Surgical endodontic treatment performed in a modern technique is a viable treatment option. The type of retrofilling material and magnification device may affect the outcome. Additional large-scale prospective clinical studies are needed to further evaluate possible predictors of success and failure.

AB - Introduction: Numerous studies on outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment have been published to date. However, study designs, treatment protocols, follow-up periods, and inclusion and exclusion criteria have been extremely heterogeneous. Thus, inconsistent and confounding results have been reported. The aim of this systematic review of the literature was to assess the outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed using a modern technique, and to evaluate factors potentially influencing the outcome. Methods: Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were adopted in order to identify randomized clinical trials, controlled trials, and prospective case series that studied surgical endodontic treatments. Treatment success rates were pooled, and the effect of various factors on treatment outcomes was evaluated. Results: In a follow-up of 1 year postoperatively, a successful outcome was achieved in 89.0% of patients. The outcomes obtained in studies using an operative microscope versus an endoscope were not significantly different, but both magnification devices were associated with significantly better outcomes than loupes. The use of MTA and of an operative microscope was associated with better outcomes compared with other retrofilling materials or magnification devices, respectively. Conclusions: Surgical endodontic treatment performed in a modern technique is a viable treatment option. The type of retrofilling material and magnification device may affect the outcome. Additional large-scale prospective clinical studies are needed to further evaluate possible predictors of success and failure.

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - modern technique

KW - surgical endodontic treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873734337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873734337&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.044

DO - 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.044

M3 - Article

C2 - 23402503

AN - SCOPUS:84873734337

VL - 39

SP - 332

EP - 339

JO - Journal of Endodontics

JF - Journal of Endodontics

SN - 0099-2399

IS - 3

ER -