Comparison of Endodontic Failures between Nonsurgical Retreatment and Endodontic Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Background and Objectives: In the presence of a persistent endodontic lesion or endodontic failure, the alternative for the recovery of the dental element is endodontic retreatment or endodontic surgery, which consists in the surgical removal of the root apices with retrograde closure of the endodontium. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide an updated value of the Risk Ratio between the two types of treatment in order to offer to clinicians who propose a non-surgical endodontic retreatment or an endodontic surgery a direct comparison. Materials and Methods: The revision was performed according to PRISMA indications: three databases (PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane register) were consulted through the use of keywords relevant to the revision topic: surgical endodontic retreatment, endodontic retreatment, apicoectomy. This search produced 7568 records which, after eliminating duplicates and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulted in a total of seven included articles. The meta-analyses were conducted by applying fixed-effects models, given the low percentage of heterogeneity. In addition, trial sequency analysis (TSA) was performed for the analysis of the statistical power of the results and GRADE for the quality of the evidence. Results: The results of the meta-analyses' data report an aggregate risk ratio (RR) between non-surgical endodontic retreatment and surgical endodontic retreatment of: 1.05 [0.74, 1.47] at one year of follow-up; RR 2.22 [1.45, 3.41] at two years of follow-up; an RR 1.08 [0.73 1.62] for a follow-up period of 3-4 years; and an RR 0.92 [0.53, 1.61] for a follow-up period of 8-10 years. Conclusions: The results of the present meta-analysis show that in the long term, the risk of failure is identical for the two groups, and there is only a slightly higher risk of failure for non-surgical endodontic retreatments, when only two years of follow-up are considered.

The influence of smoking on the survival of dental implants: a 5-year pragmatic multicentre retrospective cohort study of 1727 patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of cigarette smoking on the survival of dental implants with a retrospective observational study of 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1727 consecutively treated patients at four private practices were divided into non-smokers (NS group, 1178 patients) and smokers (S group; 549 patients) according to what they declared prior to implant placement. Non-smokers received 4460 implants and 2583 implant-supported prostheses, whereas smokers received 2260 implants and 1292 implant supported prostheses. Various implant systems and procedures were used. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival. RESULTS: Over the 5 years after loading, 159 (17%) non-smokers and 91 (13%) smokers were lost to follow-up; 20 (0.9%) prostheses could not be placed or failed in 15 non-smokers and 12 prostheses (1.2%) could not be placed or failed in 12 smokers. One hundred and twelve (2.9%) implants failed in 105 non-smokers and 107 (5.5%) implants failed in 75 smokers. Most of the implant failures (90%) occurred before implant loading. Fitting a logistic regression for early implant failures and total implant failures, taking into account the clustering of implants in patients, there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures (P value not calculated as too few failures) and early implant failures between the two groups (P = 0.13). However, when considering all implant failures up to 5 years after loading, significantly more failures (5.5%) occurred in smokers compared with non-smokers (2.9%) (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.50; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the retrospective nature of this study, conclusions have to be interpreted with caution. Five years after loading, smokers experienced almost twice as many implant failures compared with non-smokers. Non-statistically significant trends in favour of non-smokers were observed for early implant failures and prosthesis failures.

Outcome of dental implants in patients with and without a history of periodontitis: a 5-year pragmatic multicentre retrospective cohort study of 1727 patients.

AIM: To evaluate the outcome of dental implants placed in patients with a history of periodontitis. Patients with no or mild history of periodontitis served as controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1727 patients were consecutively treated in four private practices. Patients were divided into three groups according to their initial periodontal conditions assessed with a modified periodontal screening and recording (PSR) index: 630 patients were in the severe periodontitis (SP) group, 839 in the moderate periodontitis (MP) group, and 258 had no periodontitis (NP). Patients requiring periodontal treatment were treated prior to implantation. Various implant systems and procedures were used. In total, 3260 implants and 1707 implant-supported prostheses were placed in the SP group, 2813 implants and 1744 implant-supported prostheses in the MP group, and 647 implants and 424 implant-supported prostheses in the NP group. Mixed implant­tooth supported prostheses (98 prostheses in 89 patients) were not considered. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant survival. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty patients were lost to follow-up 5 years after loading. Regarding prosthesis failures, 13 prostheses could not be placed or failed in 13 patients of the SP group (0.8%), 11 prostheses could not be placed or failed in 9 patients of the MP group (0.7%), and 3 prostheses failed in 3 patients of the NP group (0.9%). For implant failures, 130 (4.5%) implants failed in the SP group, 74 (3.1%) implants failed in the MP group, and 15 (3.0%) implants failed in the NP group. Most of the implant failures (90%) occurred before implant loading. Fitting a logistic regression for early implant failures and total implant failures, taking into account the clustering of implants in patients, there were no statistically significant differences between the three PSR groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the retrospective nature of this study, conclusions need to be interpreted with caution. A previous history of periodontal disease may not have a significant impact on implant failures up to 5 years after loading.