• 1.

    Hale FA. Localized intrinsic staining of teeth due to pulpitis and pulp necrosis in dogs. J Vet Dent. 2001;18(1):1420. doi: 10.1177/089875640101800102

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Berman LH, Rotstein I. Diagnosis. In: Berman LH, Hargreaves KM, eds. Cohen's Pathways of the Pulp. 11th ed. Mosby; 2016:232.

  • 3.

    Menzies RA, Reiter AM, Lewis JR. Assessment of apical periodontitis in dogs and humans: a review. J Vet Dent. 2014;31(1):821. doi: 10.1177/089875641403100101

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Torabinejad M, Shabahang S. Pulp and periapical pathosis. In: Torabinejad M, Walton RE, eds. Endodontics: Principles and Practice. 4th ed. Saunders Elsevier; 2009:4666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature–part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J. 2008;41(1):631. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01323.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Kuntsi-Vaattovaara H, Verstraete FJM, Kass PH. Results of root canal treatment in dogs: 127 cases (1995–2000). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2002;220(6):775780. doi: 10.2460/javma.2002.220.775

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology on quality guidelines for endodontic treatment. Int Endod J. 1994;27(3):115124. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00240.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J. 2006;39(12):921930. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01180.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    White SC, Pharoah MJ. Projection Geometry. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, eds. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 6th ed. Mosby; 2009:4652.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Strøm PC, Arzi B, Lommer MJ, et al. Radiographic outcome of root canal treatment of canine teeth in cats: 32 cases (1998–2016). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2018;252(5):572580. doi: 10.2460/javma.252.5.572

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature—part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success. Int Endod J. 2007;40(12):921939. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01322.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Pirani C, Chersoni S, Montebugnoli L, Prati C. Long-term outcome of non-surgical root canal treatment: a retrospective analysis. Odontology. 2015;103(2):185193. doi: 10.1007/s10266-014-0159-0

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Stoll R, Betke K, Stachniss V. The influence of different factors on the survival of root canal fillings: a 10-year retrospective study. J Endod. 2005;31(11):783790. doi: 10.1097/01.don.0000158229.43298.a9

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Friedman S, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto Study. Phase 1: initial treatment. J Endod. 2003;29(12):787793. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200312000-00001

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Chugal NM, Clive JM, Spångberg LS. A prognostic model for assessment of the outcome of endodontic treatment: effect of biologic and diagnostic variables. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001;91(3):342352. doi: 10.1067/moe.2001.113106

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Basmadjian-Charles CL, Farge P, Bourgeois DM, Lebrun T. Factors influencing the long-term results of endodontic treatment: a review of the literature. Int Dent J. 2002;52(2):8186. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2002.tb00605.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Dammaschke T, Steven D, Kaup M, Reiner Ott KH. Long-term survival of root-canal-treated teeth: a retrospective study over 10 years. J Endod. 2003;29(10):638643. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200310000-00006

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Hoskinson SE, Ng YL, Hoskinson AE, Moles DR, Gulabivala K. A retrospective comparison of outcome of root canal treatment using two different protocols. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;93(6):705715. doi: 10.1067/moe.2001.122822

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Azim AA, Griggs JA, Huang GT. The Tennessee study: factors affecting treatment outcome and healing time following nonsurgical root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2016;49(1):616. doi: 10.1111/iej.12429

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. Int Endod J. 2011;44(7):583609. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01872.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1990;16(10):498504. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Kojima K, Inamoto K, Nagamatsu K, et al. Success rate of endodontic treatment of teeth with vital and nonvital pulps. A meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;97:9599. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.07.006

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Raedel M, Hartmann A, Bohm S, Walter MH. Three-year outcomes of root canal treatment: mining an insurance database. J Dent. 2015;43(4):412417. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.013

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Tavares PB, Bonte E, Boukpessi T, Siqueira JF Jr, Lasfargues J-J. Prevalence of apical periodontitis in root canal-treated teeth from an urban French population: influence of the quality of root canal fillings and coronal restorations. J Endod. 2009;35(6):810813. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.048

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Cheung GS. Survival of first-time nonsurgical root canal treatment performed in a dental teaching hospital. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;93(5):596604. doi: 10.1067/moe.2002.120254

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    De Moor RJ, Hommez GM, De Boever JG, et al. Periapical health related to the quality of root canal treatment in a Belgian population. Int Endod J. 2000;33(2):113120. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00295.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Ridell K, Petersson A, Matsson L, Mejàre I. Periapical status and technical quality of root-filled teeth in Swedish adolescents and young adults. A retrospective study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2006;64(2):104110. doi: 10.1080/00016350500367637

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Huumonen S, Suominen AL, Vehkalahti MM. Prevalence of apical periodontitis in root filled teeth: findings from a nationwide survey in Finland. Int Endod J. 2017;50(3):229236. doi: 10.1111/iej.12625

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Kirkevang LL, Orstavik D, Horsted-Bindslev P, Wenzel A. Periapical status and quality of root fillings and coronal restorations in a Danish population. Int Endod J. 2000;33(6):509515. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00381.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Lothamer CW, Anderson A, Hetzel SJ, et al. Apical microleakage in root canals obturated with 2 different endodontic sealer systems in canine teeth of dogs. J Vet Dent. 2017;34(2):8691. doi: 10.1177/0898756417713978

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Fleming CH, Litaken MS, Alley LW, Eleazer PD. Comparison of classic endodontic techniques versus contemporary techniques on endodontic treatment success. J Endod. 2010;36(3):414418. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.013

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    de Paula-Silva FWG, Santamaria M Jr, Leonardo MR, Consolaro A, Bezerra da Silva LA. Cone-beam computerized tomographic, radiographic, and histologic evaluation of periapical repair in dogs’ post-endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108(5):796805. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.06.016

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Radiographic outcome of root canal treatment in dogs: 281 teeth in 204 dogs (2001–2018)

Da Bin Lee DVM1, Boaz Arzi DVM2, Philip H. Kass DVM, MPVM, PhD3, and Frank J. M. Verstraete DrMedVet, MMedVet2
View More View Less
  • 1 Dentistry and Oral Surgery Service, William R. Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA
  • | 2 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA
  • | 3 Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the radiographic outcome of root canal treatment (RCT) in dogs and compare outcomes with those reported for a previous study performed at the same institution in 2002.

ANIMALS

204 dogs representing 281 teeth that underwent RCT.

PROCEDURES

The medical record database of a veterinary teaching hospital was searched to identify dogs that underwent RCT between 2001 and 2018. Only dogs that had undergone at least 1 radiographic recheck appointment a minimum of 50 days after RCT were included in the study. Dental radiographs were reviewed. Treatment was considered successful if the periapical periodontal ligament space was within reference limits and preexisting external inflammatory root resorption (EIRR), if present, had stabilized. Treatment was considered to show no evidence of failure (NEF) if preoperative EIRR had stabilized and any preoperative periapical lucency (PAL) remained the same or had decreased in size but had not completely resolved. Treatment was considered to have failed if EIRR or a PAL developed after RCT, if a preoperative PAL increased in size, or if preexisting EIRR progressed.

RESULTS

Follow-up time ranged from 52 to 3,245 days (mean, 437 days). RCT was classified as successful for 199 (71%) teeth, NEF for 71 (25%) teeth, and failed for 11 (4%) teeth.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results showed that almost 2 decades after RCT outcome in dogs was first evaluated, during which time numerous advances in dental materials and techniques had been made, the success rate of RCT was virtually unchanged.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the radiographic outcome of root canal treatment (RCT) in dogs and compare outcomes with those reported for a previous study performed at the same institution in 2002.

ANIMALS

204 dogs representing 281 teeth that underwent RCT.

PROCEDURES

The medical record database of a veterinary teaching hospital was searched to identify dogs that underwent RCT between 2001 and 2018. Only dogs that had undergone at least 1 radiographic recheck appointment a minimum of 50 days after RCT were included in the study. Dental radiographs were reviewed. Treatment was considered successful if the periapical periodontal ligament space was within reference limits and preexisting external inflammatory root resorption (EIRR), if present, had stabilized. Treatment was considered to show no evidence of failure (NEF) if preoperative EIRR had stabilized and any preoperative periapical lucency (PAL) remained the same or had decreased in size but had not completely resolved. Treatment was considered to have failed if EIRR or a PAL developed after RCT, if a preoperative PAL increased in size, or if preexisting EIRR progressed.

RESULTS

Follow-up time ranged from 52 to 3,245 days (mean, 437 days). RCT was classified as successful for 199 (71%) teeth, NEF for 71 (25%) teeth, and failed for 11 (4%) teeth.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results showed that almost 2 decades after RCT outcome in dogs was first evaluated, during which time numerous advances in dental materials and techniques had been made, the success rate of RCT was virtually unchanged.

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Verstraete (fjverstraete@ucdavis.edu)