- Authors: Strindberg L.
- Title: The Dependence of the Results of Pulp Therapy on Certain Factors.
- Journal: Acta Odontol Scand
- Date: Jan 1956
- Citation: Volume 14, Supplement 21
- Category: Success and Failure
- Evidence-based Ranking: 2
- Purpose/Objectives: To study a broad range of factors relative to RCT treatment and determine their influence on ultimate success or failure of the treatment.
Materials & Methods: 254 patients with 529 teeth with 775 canals were included. Teeth were treated with pulpotomy and RCT over a six year period and followed for a four year period and later. Success and failure were determined by a combination of clinical exams and radiological exams. Statistical analysis was preformed and the factors having a significant influence on success or failure were reported.
Results: 1. Age No difference between younger (< 35) or older 2. Number of teeth treated Higher success for 4 or less than for 5 or more 3. Pulpal anatomy Higher success for 3 roots than 2 roots than 1 root; Higher success for teeth that could not be prepared to the apex than for those that could. 4. Pulp status Higher success for necrotic pulps than for pulpitis. 5. Periradicular status Lower success rates for teeth with periapical radiolucencies; The larger the area the lower the chance for success. 6. Apical resorption Lower success for teeth with apical resorption. 7. Forms of pulpectomy No difference between vital, paraformaldehyde or arsenical paste. 8. Antibacterial treatment Larger numbers of sterile dressings did not increase success rate. 9. Clinical and technical complication Presence of acute symptoms did not decrease success. Broken file fragments left in canal decreased success. 10. Canal preparation Wider apical preparation led to higher success rate. 11. Root filling material No difference. 12. Type of root filling Pronounced overfilling decreased success. Poor adaptation or shrinkage of filling reduces success.
Authors Conclusion: Many factors can influence the success and failure of root canal treatment.
Validity of Conclusion: Valid but possibly outdated.
Reviewers Comments: A well designed, long term study that took a huge effort to fulfill. At the time it was certainly extremely relevant.