Further Interventions after Root Canal Treatment Are Most Common in Molars and Teeth Restored with Direct Restorations: A 10-11-Year Follow-Up of the Adult Swedish Population.

INTRODUCTION: The aims were to investigate 1) the frequency of nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, extraction, and further restorative treatment during a follow-up of 10-11 years after root filling and compare the frequencies according to tooth group and type of coronal restoration and 2) the timing of nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, and extraction. METHODS: Data were collected from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency's register. A search for treatment codes identified teeth root filled in 2009 and the type of coronal restoration (direct, indirect, and unspecified) registered within 6 months of root filling. The root-filled teeth were followed 10-11 years, and further interventions were recorded. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In 2009, root fillings were registered for 215,611 individuals/teeth. Nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, and extraction were undertaken in 3.5%, 1.4%, and 20% teeth, respectively. The frequency of further interventions varied with respect to tooth group and type of coronal restoration, but only slightly for endodontic retreatments. Further interventions, except for root-end surgery, were registered more often for molars and directly restored teeth (P < .001). The majority of endodontic retreatments were undertaken within 4 years, while extractions were evenly distributed over 10-11 years. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency numbers of nonsurgical retreatment and root-end surgery were low, despite 1 in 5 root-filled teeth registered as extracted. Further interventions were most common in molars and directly restored teeth. Endodontic retreatments were performed more often during the first 4 years.

General dental practitioners' fees for root canal treatment, coronal restoration and follow-on treatment in the adult population in Sweden: A 10-year follow-up of data from the Swedish Dental Register.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the accumulated fees connected with root filling, permanent coronal restoration and follow-on treatment charged by Swedish dentists over a 10-11-year follow-up period. Furthermore, analyzing these fees with reference to the type of restoration, tooth group, and the root-filled teeth which survived compared to those requiring extraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2009, the data register of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency recorded a total of 215,611 teeth as root-filled. The accumulated fees for each tooth encompassed the following interventions: initial root filling, coronal restorations, and follow-up treatments during the designated period. The outcomes were analyzed using descriptive and analytic statistics, including t tests and one-way analysis of variance. The fees are presented in Euros (€1 = SEK 8.94). RESULTS: The total accumulated fees for root fillings amounted to 72 million Euros: the mean fee per root filled tooth was €333.6. The total mean fee over a 10-11-year period, comprising root canal treatment, coronal restorations, and any follow-up treatments, was €923.4. Root-filled teeth with indirect restorations presented a higher mean fee (€1 279.3) compared to those with direct restorations (€829.4) or those without specified restorations (€832.7; p < .001). Moreover, molars presented a significantly higher mean fee (€966.4) compared to premolars (€882.8) and anterior teeth (€891.3; p < .001). Lastly, the mean fee for extracted teeth was €1225.3, which was higher compared to those who survived the follow-up period (€848.0; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Fees charged by general dental practitioners for root-filled teeth accumulate over time, probably due to the need for further treatment of the tooth. The total mean fee was significantly higher for molars and root-filled teeth with indirect restorations. However, an analysis of the total costs would require prospective clinical cost-effectiveness studies.

Cost-effectiveness of root canal treatment compared with tooth extraction in a Swedish Public Dental Service: A prospective controlled cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of root canal treatment (RCT) compared with a tooth extraction in a general dental practice setting, with reference to cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 1 year. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective controlled cohort study based on patients either starting RCT or undergoing extraction at one of six Public Dental Service clinics in the county of Västra Götaland, Sweden. From a total of 65 patients, 2 comparable groups were formed: 37 started RCT and 28 underwent extraction. A societal perspective was used for the cost calculations. QALYs were estimated, based on the EQ-5D-5L given to the patients at their first treatment appointment and then after 1, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: The total mean cost of RCT ($689.1) was higher than for extraction ($280.1). For those patients whose extracted tooth was replaced, the costs were even higher ($1245.5). There were no significant intergroup differences in QALYs, but a significant improvement in health state values in the tooth-preserving group. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, extraction was cost-effective compared with preserving a tooth with RCT. However, the potential need for future replacement of the extracted tooth, by an implant, fixed prosthesis, or removable partial dentures, may change the calculation in favor of RCT.

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in Endodontics: A consensus-based development study.

Observational studies are non-interventional studies that establish the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations or analyse the relationship between health status and other variables. They also facilitate the development of specific research questions for future randomized trials or to answer important scientific questions when trials are not possible to carry out. This article outlines the previously documented consensus-based approach by which the Preferred Reporting items for Observational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023 guidelines were developed. A steering committee of nine members was formed, including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding several new items specifically for the specialty of Endodontics. The steering committee then established a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG) and a PROBE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to obtain expert input and feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. The PDG members participated in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items present in the PROBE checklist. The POMG then held detailed discussions on the PROBE checklist generated through the online Delphi process. This online meeting was held via the Zoom platform on 7th October 2022. Following this meeting, the steering committee revised the PROBE checklist, which was piloted by several authors when preparing a manuscript describing an observational study for publication. The PROBE 2023 checklist consists of 11 sections and 58 items. Authors are now encouraged to adopt the PROBE 2023 guidelines, which will improve the overall reporting quality of observational studies in Endodontics. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely available and can be downloaded from the PRIDE website (https://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

Patient record assessment of results and related resources spent during 1 year after initiation of root canal treatment in a Swedish public dental organization.

AIM: To document treatment outcomes and related resources, in patients undergoing root canal treatment (RCT) in county public dental clinics, by monitoring patient records for 12 months from treatment start. METHODOLOGY: The subjects comprised 243 patients starting RCT at 20 public dental clinics in Västra Götaland county, Sweden. Their computerized dental records were monitored prospectively for a year after starting their endodontic treatment. Treatment was completed with either a root filling or extraction. The following treatment-specific variables were registered: number of appointments and days until treatment was completed, possible complications and prescriptions for antibiotics, and for the root filled teeth: type of coronal restoration and further procedures undertaken within the year. The treatment outcomes were compared with the preoperative variables and in a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 240 patients (98.8%): 128 women and 112 men, with a mean age of 48.5 years (SD = 16.3). Molar teeth predominated (n = 113, 47.1%). Most cases were completed with a root filling (n = 169, 70.4%). The remainder were extracted (n = 32, 13.3%) or were still uncompleted (n = 39, 16.3%). On average, a root filling was completed in 2.4 (SD = 0.9) appointments, or extraction at the third appointment (SD = 1.6). The molars were less often completed and often predominant among the extracted teeth. The indication for extraction was often for endodontic or RCT-related reasons. Most complications were registered in the molars and antibiotics were prescribed in 20 cases. Most root filled teeth were restored with a direct restoration. Four root filled teeth (2.4%) were extracted within the time period. CONCLUSIONS: Patient records, followed from the start of treatment, show that 12 months on, the root filling had not been completed in just under 30% of the teeth. Of these, about half were extracted. Of particular concern is the outcome for endodontic treatment of molar teeth. In the general practice setting, molar endodontics are not only technically challenging but also very demanding in terms of chairside resources. In the present study, a successful outcome was achieved in just over half the cases.

Comparing Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Root Canal Treatment or Tooth Extraction.

INTRODUCTION: The knowledge of patient-centered outcomes concerning the consequences of root canal treatment in daily life is limited. The treatment option is often tooth extraction with possible prosthetic replacement. This study aimed to achieve a greater understanding of the patient perspective by evaluating the effect of root canal treatment in terms of quality of life and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) weights in comparison with patients who underwent tooth extraction. METHODS: Patients with either root canal treatment or extraction were recruited from 6 clinics in the general public dental service during a predetermined period of 8 weeks. Three different instruments were used: the Oral Health Impact Profile evaluating the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQOL), the EQ-5D-5L evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and QALY weights, and a disease-specific questionnaire evaluating satisfaction regarding the root canal treatment. The evaluation was assessed at the initiation of treatment and after 1 month. Patient-based and tooth-specific characteristics were obtained from the dental records. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included. The distribution between sexes was even, with 43 women and 42 men. The mean age was 51.1 years. Forty-eight patients (56.5%) had a tooth extraction, and 37 patients (43.5%) initiated root canal treatment. The response rate for the questionnaire at baseline was 95.3%, and at the 1-month follow-up, it was 74.1%. Two relevant and comparable groups were obtained after exclusion of the extracted third molars (n = 20), resulting in 65 patients for further analyses. At follow-up, the patients who initiated root canal treatment registered a significant improvement in perceived HRQOL according to the QALY weights (P = .02 and P < .01, respectively). Patients initiating root canal treatment reported generally high satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: A cohort of patients either initiating root canal treatment or tooth extraction as a control group was established. Initiating root canal treatment had a positive impact on perceived HRQOL. The included patients in general dental practice registered overall high satisfaction regarding root canal treatment.