To evaluate a possible relationship between the quality of the coronal restoration, the root canal obturation, and the periapical status of endodontically treated teeth duplicating the methodology of a previous study by (Ray &Trope, 1995).
Materials and Methods:
– n: 1001 treated teeth. Teeth were then categorized to 4 groups: GE (Good Endodontics), PE (Poor Endodontics), GR (Good Restoration), and BR (Bad Restoration) by evaluating 2D rgs with 2x magnification by 3 examiners.
Good endodontics: All canals obturated. No voids present. Root filling ending between 2 mm short of and 1 mm beyond radiographic apex.
Poor endodontics: Root filling ending more than 2mm from radiographic apex. Root filling with voids or canals not filled. Root filling poorly dimensioned or poorly condensed.
Good restoration: Any permanent restoration that appeared intact radiographically.
Poor restoration: Any permanent restoration with radiographic signs of overhangs, recurrent decay or open margins.
Success: Normal width of PDL space. Normal appearance of surrounding bone. Failure: PARL.
Most Highlighted Results:
-Teeth with post had a success rate of 71%; teeth without post had a success rate of 64% ; the diff wasn’t sig. -SR of GE+GR was 81% and GE+PR had a SR of 71%. The diff was sig. -SR of PE+GR was 56% and PE+PR had a SR of 57% as shown in Table.1. -There was a sig diff between GE and PE regardless of the restoration type.
– The quality of the coronal restoration had no bearing on the outcome of the endodontic treatment.