Authors: Pekruhn RB.
Title: The incidence of failure following single-visit endodontic therapy.
Journal: J Endod
Date: Feb 1986
Citation: 12(2):68-72
Category: Success and Failure
Evidence-based Ranking: 2
Purpose/Objectives: To evaluate the incidence of failure following single-visit endodontic therapy.

Materials & Methods: The study involved 1,140 teeth in 918 patients. Endodontic procedures consisted of cleaning and shaping resulting in a continuous tapered funnel with an apical preparation usually not exceeded #25 or#30. Irrigation was done with 2.5% NaOCl and 90% alcohol. Obturation was done by vertical condensation and Kerr pulp canal sealer. The patients were recalled after 1 year and teeth were sorted according to tooth group, success/failure, and problem code. The problem codes consisted of 1. disorders of pulp of carious and noncarious origin, 2. disorders of periapical tissues, 3.retreatment, 4. intentional removal for perio/prosh reasons. In addition records were kept if the teeth had previous emergency treatment (open and closed), symptomatic teeth, and teeth that failed for perio/prosh reasons.

Results: The recall rate was 81.1%, with the overall failure rate being 5.2%. The breakdown of different groups and failure rates can be seen in tables 1-12. Statistically speaking, the biggest difference was seen in retreatment cases at 16.6%. Evaluation between different groups of teeth showed no difference. There was a higher incidence of failure in teeth with periapical extension of pulpal disease which had no prior access opening.

AuthorÂ’s Conclusion: 1. differences in incidences of failure among tooth groups were not significant. 2. Those teeth with evidence of periapical extension of pulpal disease had a higher incidence of failure, along with retreated teeth. 3. Those with periapical extension also had higher incidence of failure if they had not yet opened, opposed to emergency treatment. 4. There was no difference between asymptomatic and symptomatic teeth. 5. Teeth that have been left opened showed no difference in teeth that were closed.

ReviewerÂ’s Comments: Good in vivo study that supports the practice of single- visit Endodontics. Good number of patients and excellent recall rate, however no controls or comparisons made to multi-visit therapy. In cases of retreatment and periapical extension, the failure is higher, but it other studies show the failure is higher regardless of the 1v or 2v therapy.