Periapical resurgery versus periapical surgery: a 5-year longitudinal comparison

By Gagliani MM, Gorni FG, Strohmenger L.

Date: 03/2005
Journal: JOE

Summary: 

Purpose: To monitor and compare the outcome of periapical surgery (group AS) with the outcome of periapical resurgery (group RS)

N= 231 roots in 164 patients

Materials/Methods:

•According to preoperative radiographs, the roots were divided into 2 groups: 162 (group AS) and 69 (group RS)

•Surgical procedures: (group AS) apical resection of 3 mm. (group RS) the new resection was limited in length; the original apical filling material was removed and the type of material recorded; the majority was amalgam, 2 had zinc-oxide eugenol cement ,and 5 had apical resection without a root-end filling

•Root-end preparation was performed by an ultrasonic technique

•A modified zinc-oxide eugenol cement with EBA was used as the root-end filling material

Most highlighted Results:

1.Over all healing of AS & RS group, 78% completely healed, 10% had incompletely healed and 11% were associated with post-treatment disease 2.Complete healing in 86% of the (AS group) and 59% of the (RS group). (significant difference)

3.No statistically significant difference was observed between roots of anterior, premolar and molar teeth within each treatment category

Clinical significance:

Surgical retreatment of teeth previously treated with periapical surgery is a valid alternative to extraction