PubMed HealthSearch

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Endodontics”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

[Rational basis for resumption of treatment in endodontics. Should it be "down to the root" in order to be satisfied in endodontics?].

Any endodontic treatment showing a symptomatology should be retreated or corrected. Should we start the asymptomatic treatments over again when the x-ray does not show a filling that is complete, hermetically sealed, biological and under control? When the case arises, the decision to resume the treatment will depend on the state of the crown restoration: should it be redone for any reason? 1. When the crown filling does not need to be removed and redone, watchful waiting is recommended. 2. When the crown filling is deficient, and has to be redone, it would be advisable to resume or try to resume all the canal treatments that are not hermetically sealed, when an opening to the canal has to be worked out. Several experiences show that the rate of success of endodontic treatments that have been resumed is lower than that of endodontic treatments that have been carried out for the first time. Should radiographically inadequate but asymptomatic endodontic treatments not be resumed, it would result in problems only in a very small number of cases, as long as the state of intracanal balance is not broken.

Decision Trees

Influence of endodontic access on the fracture resistance, retention and microleakage of full-coverage restorations in vitro: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic access through retained full-coverage restorations (FCRs) is a preferred option for patients because of its high cost-effectiveness. However, the clinical performance of FCRs after repaired access cavity remains insufficiently characterized. This systematic review investigates the effects of endodontic access cavity preparation through retained FCRs on fracture resistance, retention, and microleakage based on in vitro studies. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Studies investigating the influence of endodontic access on the fracture resistance, retention, and microleakage of FCRs were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using the QUIN tool. Meta-analysis was employed to estimate fracture resistance and retention, with sensitivity analysis and subgroup evaluation also performed. Microleakage was summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Twentythree studies were included: fracture resistance (n = 15), retention (n = 5), and microleakage (n = 3). Endodontic access significantly reduced fracture resistance for zirconia (p = 0.0002) and lithium disilicate (LD) restorations (p = 0.007), but not for resin-matrix ceramic (RMC) restorations (p = 0.25). Abutment tooth type contributed to heterogeneity within the LD and RMC subgroups. Retention was significantly reduced when access cavities were left unrepaired (p = 0.03), whereas appropriate repair protocols restored or enhanced retention relative to baseline. Accelerated aging increased microleakage in retained FCRs. Surface pretreatments and flowable resin liners tended to reduce microleakage, but findings were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Endodontic access significantly reduces fracture resistance of zirconia and LD FCRs, whereas RMC restorations show no significant change. Appropriate repair protocols can restore or improve retention, potentially exceeding original values. Limited evidence suggests that effective sealing is achievable with appropriate materials. However, well-designed and in-vivo researches are needed to provide more detailed clinical guidance. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When performing endodontic access through retained FCRs, reduced fracture resistance must be carefully considered for zirconia and LD restorations, while RMC restorations may be exempt from this concern. Loss of retention with access can be restored after repair. Surface pretreatment and flowable resin liners help decrease microleakage.

Humans

Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle?

This study compared biomechanical properties (punch shear strength, toughness, hardness, and load to fracture) of 23 endodontically treated teeth (mean time since endodontic treatment: 10.1 yr) and their contralateral vital pairs. Analyses using paired t tests revealed no significant differences in punch shear strength, toughness, and load to fracture between the two groups. Vital dentin was 3.5% harder than dentin from contralateral endodontically treated teeth (p = 0.002). The similarity between the biomechanical properties of endodontically treated teeth and their contralateral vital pairs indicates that teeth do not become more brittle following endodontic treatment. Other factors may be more critical to failure of endodontically treated teeth.

Adult