Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40074937›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2025

Retreatment or replacement of previous endodontically treated premolars with recurrent apical periodontitis? An 8-year historical cohort study.

Fausto Zamparini, Andrea Spinelli, Jacopo Lenzi, Ove A Peters, Maria Giovanna Gandolfi, Carlo Prati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fausto ZampariniEndodontic Clinical Section, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. fausto.zamparini2@unibo.it.
Andrea SpinelliEndodontic Clinical Section, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Jacopo LenziDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Ove A PetersSchool of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5222-8718
Maria Giovanna GandolfiLaboratory of Green Biomaterials and Oral Pathology, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Carlo PratiEndodontic Clinical Section, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. carlo.prati@unibo.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe study evaluated previously-endodontically-treated premolars affected by periapical lesions and/or secondary caries requiring a multidisciplinary decision between (non-surgical) retreatment or extraction and implant replacement over an 8-year minimum follow-up. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe decision-making was performed among a pool of patients attending a University Dental School. All patients presented at least one failing previously endodontically treated premolar. Recorded parameters were: structural conditions (residual coronal-structure, caries), periodontal and endodontic status (CEJ-MBL, initial-PAI, post-presence). Two experienced operators made the decision-making and classified teeth as retreatable and restorable (Endo-group) or suitable for extraction and implant replacement (Implant-group). Logistic regression and Cox-proportional-hazard analyses with clustered-standard-errors compared baseline-characteristics and treatment-outcomes. Odds-ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence-intervals (CIs) were reported for baseline-characteristics. Hazard-ratios (HRs) expressed the association of treatment-groups with time-to-event.

resultsNinety-six patients (n = 124 premolars) were enrolled (49 M;47 F; mean-age 53.1 ± 11.6 years). The decision-making splitted 54.8% treatments to Endo-group (n = 68) and 45.2% to Implant-group (n = 56). The 8-year survival were 85.1% for Endo-group and 98.2% for Implant-group. The 8-year success were 80.5% and 93.9%. The HR from Cox regression favored Implant-group (HR = 0.12, P = 0.049). The Endo-group showed the highest number of critical complications (15%) due to fractures, despite the healing of lesions. Implant-group had a higher percentage of minor prosthetic complications (14%).

conclusionsEndo-group demonstrated higher percentage of critical complications compared to Implant-group during the follow-up. Root fractures were accounted as main responsible, while periapical disease did not affect healing, survival and clinical longevity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Insufficient crown structure was the major parameter associated with root fracture. In these cases, implant replacement strategy represented an adequate therapy justified by the higher success compared to root canal retreatment.

Indexed as

BicuspidPeriapical PeriodontitisTooth, NonvitalCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceRetreatmentTooth ExtractionTreatment OutcomeDecision makingHistorical cohort studyImplant placementMBLPAIRoot canal retreatment

Identifiers

PMID40074937
PMCPMC11903559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.