ABSTRACT
Objective: This study compared the aerosol-generating and non-aerosol-generating endodontic emergency procedures' success and assessed the outcome of endodontic treatments initiated before a pandemic but could not be completed in the targeted time. Material(s) and Method(s): Emergency treatments were performed according to symptoms of teeth. Treatment success or failure was determined according to patients whether not re-referral with untimely pain. Short-term outcome and complications arising from teeth, which endodontic treatments were prolonged were also recorded. A chi-square test was used in the statistical analysis, and p<0.05 was considered significant. Result(s): The aerosol-generating procedure group's success rate was 86.2%, while it was 70.0% in the non-aerosol generating procedure group (p=0.050). The short-term survival rate of teeth was 83.7% in patients whose endodontic treatment had been prolonged. Conclusion(s): Considering the pros and cons, each emergency patient should be evaluated case-by-case. Copyright ©Meandros Medical and Dental Journal, Published by Galenos Publishing House.