Araştırma Çıktıları | TR-Dizin | WoS | Scopus | PubMed
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/4806
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item What Is the Role of Endodontic Predisposing Factors in Early Implant Failure?(2020) Sisli, Selen Nihal; Pektas, Zafer Ozgur; 32315422We aimed to investigate a possible relationship between early implant failure (EIF) and an adjacent root canal-treated tooth and/or tooth with a periapical lesion (PL), considering the duration between implantation and root canal treatment (RCT). The importance of prior RCT and/or presence of a PL before implantation was also investigated. A total of 810 implants from 342 patients were included and scored according to the implant failure before abutment connection, adjacent root canal treated teeth, adjacent teeth without RCT, no adjacent teeth, adjacent teeth with PL, extraction of teeth with PL, and/or RCT before implantation. The durations between the extraction and implantation and between RCT and implantation adjacent to the root canal-treated teeth were recorded. The time from the RCT of adjacent teeth to implant placement was categorized into 5 groups: less than 4 weeks before implantation, 4-12 weeks before implantation, at least 12 weeks before implantation, within 4 weeks after implantation, and at least 4 weeks after implantation. Among the endodontic predictors, a prior PL on the tooth extracted was associated with an increased risk of EIF (P < .05, odds ratio: 437; 95% confidence interval: 1.604-11.891). Furthermore, EIF was more likely to occur when the RCT of an adjacent tooth was performed within 4 weeks of implantation (P < .05). Additional investigations with larger sample sizes are necessary to validate our findings.Item Incidence of root canal treatment of second molars following adjacent impacted third molar extraction(2016) Oguz, Yener; Soydan, Sidika Sinem; Onay, Emel Olga; Cubuk, Secil; 30894952Background/purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of requirement for root canal treatment of adjacent second molars following the surgical extraction of an impacted third molar. Materials and methods: The dental records of 6323 consecutive patients who had impacted third molars removed surgically were evaluated and the incidence of postoperative root canal treatment requirement of adjacent second molars was determined. Patients who required root canal treatment of neighboring second molars were accepted as the study group, while the remaining patients were accepted as a control group. Sex, age at the time of the operation, localization of third molar, the depth of impaction, angulation of the tooth, and the professional experience of the surgeon performing the operation were evaluated from patient records. Results: The incidence of requirement of root canal treatment for second molars following a neighboring impacted third molar extraction was 0.17% (11/6323) and invariably occurred in the mandible. The mean age of the study group was found to be significantly higher than the control group (31 years vs. 23 years). The years of professional experience of the surgeons was significantly lower in the study group than in the control group. Conclusion: Although the incidence is minimal, iatrogenic subluxation injuries occurring during the surgical removal of impacted third molars can lead to pulpal complications and a requirement for root canal treatment of adjacent second molars. Copyright (C) 2015, Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.