Torres A, Dierickx M, Lerut K, Bleyen S, Shaheen E, Coucke W, Pedano M S, Lambrechts P, Jacobs R
OMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Int Endod J. 2025 Feb;58(2):209-224. doi: 10.1111/iej.14157. Epub 2024 Nov 6.
High-quality, prospective clinical studies are needed to increase evidence for guided endodontics. This study aims to assess the clinical outcome of guided endodontics for treatment of teeth presenting with pulp canal obliteration (PCO) in comparison with freehand treatment.
This trial was registered in the ISRCTN.com registry (ISRCTN75277265) and designed as a controlled clinical trial: Single arm trial, prospective, nonrandomized, single-centre study (ethical approval number S64630). Inclusion criteria were; tooth presenting with PCO and symptoms and/or signs of apical periodontitis (AP). An external control group was selected from clinical records of patients presenting the same criteria but treated freehanded. Guided root canal treatments were performed by the same operator on all patients. Freehanded treatments were performed by a specialist in endodontics under microscope with pre-operative CBCT available. Primary outcome for both groups was evaluated as: canal found, canal not found, or perforation. As secondary outcome, the qualitative accuracy of the drill path was assessed as: optimal precision, acceptable precision or technical failure. Patients were followed up yearly. Descriptive statistics on the study patient's demographics and healing outcome were performed and specific statistical analysis was performed on each outcome variable.
A total of 133 teeth were included (n = 60 guided, n = 73 freehanded) from 128 patients (n = 59 guided, n = 69 freehanded). The primary outcome for the guided group was: 59 teeth canals found and 1 tooth canal not found. No perforations were recorded. In the freehanded group, the root canal was successfully found in 59 teeth, seven were not found, and seven had a perforation. An analysis of all data showed that guided endodontics presented statistically significant better outcome than freehand treatment (p < .05).
Guided endodontics showed a statistically significant better outcome than freehanded treatment resulting in less technical failures. However, it is a complex procedure which should be carried out by an experienced endodontist with the aid of a dental microscope.
需要高质量的前瞻性临床研究来增加引导式牙髓治疗的证据。本研究旨在评估引导式牙髓治疗与徒手治疗相比,治疗牙髓腔闭塞(PCO)牙齿的临床效果。
本试验在ISRCTN.com注册中心(ISRCTN75277265)注册,设计为对照临床试验:单臂试验、前瞻性、非随机、单中心研究(伦理批准号S64630)。纳入标准为:患有PCO且有根尖周炎(AP)症状和/或体征的牙齿。从具有相同标准但接受徒手治疗的患者临床记录中选取外部对照组。所有患者均由同一名操作者进行引导根管治疗。徒手治疗由牙髓病专家在显微镜下进行,并提供术前CBCT。两组的主要结局评估为:根管找到、根管未找到或穿孔。作为次要结局,钻孔路径的定性准确性评估为:最佳精度、可接受精度或技术失败。每年对患者进行随访。对研究患者的人口统计学和愈合结局进行描述性统计,并对每个结局变量进行特定的统计分析。
共纳入128例患者的133颗牙齿(引导组n = 60,徒手组n = 73)(引导组n = 59,徒手组n = 69)。引导组的主要结局为:59颗牙齿找到根管,1颗牙齿未找到根管。未记录到穿孔。在徒手组中,59颗牙齿成功找到根管,7颗未找到,7颗发生穿孔。对所有数据的分析表明,引导式牙髓治疗的结局在统计学上显著优于徒手治疗(p < 0.05)。
引导式牙髓治疗在统计学上显示出比徒手治疗更好的结局,技术失败更少。然而,这是一个复杂的过程,应由经验丰富的牙髓病医生在牙科显微镜的辅助下进行。