Abstract
Historically, surgical endodontics has been viewed as a treatment of last resort, mainly due to poor outcomes as a result of limitations in materials and techniques. Contemporary techniques, modern materials and better visualisation have all led to an improvement in success rates, making endodontic microsurgery a valuable treatment option to certain patients. Such advances, however, are no substitute for skill in endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning, which can often prove challenging. A variety of tools are available to test for fractures and assess both periodontal and pulpal health. More advanced techniques such as cone beam computed tomography are often invaluable in pre-surgical assessment and diagnosis. Once an accurate diagnosis has been established, a favourable prognosis is explicitly linked to careful patient selection. Orthograde treatment, or retreatment, remains the gold standard for the majority of endodontic problems. However, there are a number of indications for surgery where orthograde treatment is either impossible, or less likely to be successful. It is paramount for any clinician undertaking endodontic surgery to have a detailed understanding of the local and systemic factors associated with successful treatment. Whilst there are few absolute medical contraindications, there are a number of conditions which may influence patient management and make treatment more challenging.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Key points
-
Reviews the indications and contraindications for endodontic microsurgery.
-
Identifies key factors to consider when planning endodontic microsurgery.
-
Discusses the factors associated with success, and the success rates of endodontic microsurgery.
Introduction
Endodontic surgery has often been viewed as a treatment of last resort. Historically, the technique has been flawed due to limitations with instruments and materials alongside challenges in access and visualisation. The surgery has been considered brutal and, most importantly, it has been associated with poor outcomes. Modern techniques overcome these obstacles and this is borne out by ever increasing success rate data.1 These papers seek to review these changes and inform practitioners on the current guidance for diagnosis, patient selection and treatment regimen.
History
The patient's complaint
It is often possible to determine an accurate differential diagnosis derived from the history before even examining the patient. Pulpal, periodontal and periapical pain all have characteristic descriptive features, but it is necessary to also consider more uncommon causes of discomfort which can sometimes mimic dental pain such as neuropathic, sinusitic or idiopathic pain. Though superficially these can be hard to diagnose, there are often signs and symptoms that do not align with odontogenic pain.2,3
Medical history
Though there are no medical contraindications to root canal treatment and few absolute contraindications to endodontic surgery, a detailed medical history is required as there are a number of conditions which may influence patient management. The American Society of Anesthesiologist's (ASA) classification of physical states (Table 1) is a simple tool for determining the physical health of a patient. In general, patients in ASA classes I and II could be safely managed in primary care. An assessment of the suitability of ASA Class III patients to undergo endodontic surgery would need to be made on an individual basis, with input from general or specialist medical colleagues if necessary. Those in Class IV would be considered unsuitable for elective endodontic surgery and any non-urgent dental treatment should be postponed until a time when the patient's general physical state has improved.
Bleeding risk
Bleeding is a risk during any surgery where an incision is made and there is a range of conditions and medications which can potentiate this bleeding risk (Table 2). It is important to note that whilst general guidance is available, none of the major guidelines reference endodontic surgery in their descriptors of what constitutes dental treatment.5,6
Osseous conditions
Any conditions that affect bony healing should be identified. Principally, these include patients who have a history of radiotherapy and those taking bisphosphonates. There is no official guidance in relation to endodontics, however it would be wise to consider orthograde re-root treatment if possible in such patients, and it has been suggested that surgical endodontics should be contraindicated.7 If orthograde treatment is not possible one must then discuss the risks inherent with both extraction or surgical endodontic treatment. In such cases there may not be a 'right' answer but endodontic microsurgery may well be less invasive than exodontia in some cases. Close liaison with the necessary medical support is essential if there is any doubt about exposure status and risk of bone necrosis.
Steroid cover
There have been reported cases of adrenal crises precipitated by dental treatment in patients taking steroid medications8 and there has been debate surrounding the need for steroid cover in such patients. It is recommended that in patients who are taking steroid medication, additional cover should be provided based on the level of physiological stress caused by a procedure. For minor oral surgical procedures, such as surgical endodontics, it is recommended that the patient takes their morning dose of steroid as usual, followed by a double dose of their next dose an hour before the procedure, and that they continue with double doses at their usual intervals for 24 hours.9
Cardiovascular disease
There is no contraindication to surgical endodontic treatment, if cardiovascular disease is well controlled. In patients who have had a recent myocardial infarction or who are found to be severely hypertensive, elective surgical treatment should be delayed until their condition has stabilised. A number of cardiac diseases can predispose to infective endocarditis following endodontic surgery. Current guidance stipulates that antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended routinely for patients undergoing dental surgery.10 However, apical surgery can be considered a high-risk procedure and, in high-risk patients, a single dose of antibiotic prophylaxis could be considered.11 The most recent implementation advice with regards to the NICE guidelines suggests that in patients with certain conditions such as prosthetic valves, previous endocarditis or congenital heart disease, antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered through liaison with their cardiologist.12 It is also suggested that there should be a discussion of the signs and symptoms of infective endocarditis and the risks and benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis with all 'at risk' patients.
Mental capacity
Patients with reduced capacity to consent are not contraindicated to either surgery or orthograde root canal treatment, but complex treatment on such patients can be demanding if not impossible. A best interests decision, made in conjunction with next of kin, carers and if need be an independent mental capacity advocate, could include surgical endodontics if clinically appropriate. Key factors to consider must be the complexity of the treatment, the patient's ability to undergo care and the necessary IV or GA adjuncts required to facilitate such care.
Examination
Extra-oral examination will identify the presence of swellings, sinuses or lymphadenopathy within the neck or face. These may all support the diagnosis of persistent endodontic disease (Figs 1 and 2). Intra-oral examination should assess the patient's oral hygiene and occlusion. Details of any periodontal disease, caries or tooth surface loss should also be recorded. When assessing previously endodontically treated teeth, particular attention should be paid to the following:
The presence of sinus tracts in buccal or palatal soft tissues
Tenderness within the buccal sulcus
Mobility
Tenderness to percussion
Isolated deep pocketing suggestive of root fracture
Expansion of the alveolar bone
The quality of coronal restoration
The periodontal status of the tooth.
Table 3 discusses some of the factors at a tooth level which may influence patient management (Fig. 3).
Further investigations
Assessing periodontal health
A basic periodontal examination must be performed and it is essential to assess the tooth or teeth under suspicion in more detail. Horizontal pattern bone loss may contraindicate surgery, and when severe may contraindicate any form of treatment especially when the diagnosis of a perio-endo lesion is suspected. Deep isolated pockets may represent draining sinuses for endodontic lesions. However, they are also pathognomonic of root fractures, which often contraindicate any further endodontic treatment, be it surgical or non-surgical.
Kim has suggested a classification for assessing the perio-endo status of a tooth (Fig. 4). Classifications A-C represent favourable conditions for endodontic surgery. Classifications D-F represent progressive periodontal involvement. A classification D reflects the coexistence of both periodontal and endodontic lesions. Classification E, the presence of a combined perio-endo lesion and F, a perio-endo lesion with loss of buccal plate. Kim suggests that cases D-F carry uncertain outcomes and may be contraindications to treatment. This may be too simplistic. Firstly, the true nature of any defect may not be fully understood until surgical exposure, at which time it is often reasonable to continue with planned therapy accepting a compromised outcome. Secondly, the biology of a primary endo secondary periodontal lesion may have greater potential to heal than a primary perio secondary endodontic lesion; this distinction should be recognised rather than contraindicating all perio-endo lesions.
Testing for fractures
Previously root treated teeth are usually heavily restored and fractures are not uncommon. Diagnosis of cracked teeth can be difficult but is important, as the presence of a fracture may rule out any further complex treatment. The use of the Fract-finders or a Tooth Sleuth on an individual cusp can often recreate the vague, painful symptoms caused by cracked teeth. Visualisation under magnification and good illumination is essential. Fibre-optic lights or disclosing solutions can also be used to highlight fracture lines within teeth. If, radiographically, a lesion is not centred on the apex but rather the lateral aspect of the root, this may suggest a fracture.
Assessing pulpal health
By definition, a tooth that is suspected to need either retreatment or surgery will be non-vital. It is, however, sensible to test adjacent teeth to build the case that pathology stems from the suspected tooth and ensure that the adjacent teeth are healthy. A variety of tools are available, but cold testing with a suitably cold medium consistently appears to be the most reliable. Propane-butane mixes reach temperatures of 50 degrees Celsius and should be considered the gold standard, not ethyl chloride.13,14,15
Radiology
The standard imaging required prior to surgical endodontic treatment are plain film intra-oral radiographs. These can provide detailed information regarding the diagnosis of periapical lesions and should include at least 3 mm of tissue beyond the apex (Fig. 5).16 The principles of parallax can be used assess multi-rooted teeth and gutta percha points may be placed down sinus tracts to identify the origin. Extra-oral panoramic radiographs can also be of use for larger lesions, however superimposition of structures can sometimes make diagnosis difficult (Fig. 6).
Increasingly, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been used to provide detailed radiographic examination and can be particularly useful in planning surgical endodontic treatment. Its use, however, should not be routine, but reserved for cases in which conventional radiography has not provided sufficient information to make an accurate diagnosis or pre-surgical assessment for anatomical variances and proximity to key structures. CBCT provides better assessment of the relationship of lesions to anatomical structures such as the maxillary antrum and mental nerve, when compared to conventional radiography;17 such information can be invaluable when planning a surgical approach. CBCT can also provide greater information with regards to complications such as root fracture18 and root resorption.19 Guidelines in the UK state that CBCT may be indicated in selected surgical cases, but that selection should be made on an assessment of potential complicating factors (Fig. 7).20
Establishing the correct diagnosis is key in determining the most appropriate primary treatment strategy (Table 4). If there is doubt about the correct diagnosis, referral to local ENT, maxillofacial surgery or facial pain services for a second opinion and possible management strategy is wise before undertaking any dental treatment.
Indications for re-root canal treatment
When undertaken to a high standard, endodontic treatment is associated with success rates in excess of 80% and survival rates over 90%.21,22 Primary treatment can, however, fail for a number of reasons. Ultimately, this may be due to persistent intraradicular infection, extraradicular infection, foreign body response to extruded materials, or the development of a cyst.23 It is essential to reflect upon the possible reason for persistent disease, as this will dictate the most appropriate treatment strategy. The most common cause remains the persistence of bacteria within the root canal system.24 This may be due to a complex myriad of factors but the clinician should be aware of the most likely causes.
Inadequate primary root canal treatment resulting in bacterial persistence similar to a primary disease
Principally, this could be due to poor technique with inadequate shaping and cleaning or reflect some of the challenges all endodontic treatments pose: complex micro- and macro-anatomy and the complex biofilm. If suspected, in these circumstances, retreatment should be considered the most sensible option. If there is considerable iatrogenic damage to a tooth, the consent process should make the patient aware of the challenges in overcoming such problems.25
High-quality primary root canal treatment with persistent primary disease
Unless there is missed anatomy, the bacterial species in these cases may be more limited and more virulent.25 Retreatment may be more challenging and consideration must be given to the limitations of instrumentation and cleaning within complex anatomy. Nonetheless, retreatment should be considered the first option unless there is confidence that the primary treatment cannot be improved upon.
Other possible aetiological factors
Irrespective of the quality of the root canal treatment, there are several factors that may result in failure if not diagnosed. These include fractures, perforations, and failure of the coronal restoration and seal. In the case of fractures, it is unlikely that retreatment or surgery will result in success. Where the coronal seal is compromised one should be optimistic about the likelihood of success. Perforations present more challenges but ultimately success may be related to the size, duration and site of the perforation.26
Non-surgical retreatment is associated with success rates of over 80% when undertaken to a high standard, with survival rates of up to 95%22,27 there is some evidence that it may offer a better prognosis than apical surgery alone.28 Furthermore the presence of an existing root filling and adequate coronal seal are prognostic indicators in surgical endodontics.29,30 As such, the possibility of orthograde retreatment should always be considered before surgery or extraction.
Indications for endodontic surgery
Iatrogenic or developmental anomalies which prevent orthograde treatment
Factors that may prevent the clinician accessing apical anatomy and thus thoroughly decontaminating include: ledging, fractured instruments, restoration with posts, and heavily sclerosed canals. It is important to note that the above are not absolute indications for surgery, as there are many techniques for retrieving fractured instruments31 and removing posts from canals.32 A clinician with specialist skill and access to a microscope may be able to resolve such problems without resorting to a surgical approach (Figs 8 and 9).
Failure of orthograde treatment when retreatment is unlikely to be successful
If the original treatment has been undertaken to a high standard and there is confidence that it cannot be improved, then surgery becomes the treatment of choice. Often the judgement about the quality of a root canal treatment is based upon a two-dimensional radiograph, with only proxy information to the techniques and skill of the original treating clinician. Unless one actually performed the original treatment and can objectively vouch for the technical merits of the protocol, it is impossible to know how well the canals are shaped, cleaned and obturated, and under what conditions the care was provided. As such, even if the original treatment appears high-quality there may be a possibility to improve the care provided (Fig. 10).
Failure of orthograde treatment when coronal disassembly would jeopardise the prognosis of the tooth or prove too costly or time consuming.
If the collateral damage incurred in disassembly would render the tooth unrestorable or begin to incur costs that start to parallel other prosthetic modalities, an honest conversation should be held with the patient to explore the surgical endodontics or alternatives to endodontic therapy (Fig. 11).
Biopsy
There are occasions when the diagnosis of an apical lesion is not clear from the clinical history and radiographic investigations. In such cases, a surgical approach may be indicated so that a specimen can be obtained for histopathological analysis.
Surgical exploration
In cases where there is a suspected fracture or perforation, the diagnosis may remain unclear despite CBCT imaging. Surgical exploration in these cases can be invaluable (Fig. 12).
Retrieval of displaced materials or instruments
Foreign body reactions or biofilm development around extruded materials/instruments contributes to non-healing lesions.33,34 If these cannot be retrieved via the canal system surgery may be the only option available.
Patient factors precluding lengthy retreatment
These could include patients with trismus, patients who cannot tolerate rubber dam, or simply patients who, through conditions of chronic pain, cannot remain seated comfortably for the two hours plus required to undertake retreatment. In these cases, though not the first line choice, surgical treatment may be the most pragmatic option.
Contraindications to endodontic surgery
Internal factors
Inadequate surgical skill, training or support.
Medical or psychological factors precluding surgery
Factors such as dental anxiety, the patient's ability to maintain complex restorations and even an individual preference towards particular treatment options can all rule out the provision of surgery. As discussed earlier, the patient's capacity to consent and any relevant medical history can contraindicate surgical treatment.
Dental factors
Unstable oral disease
Endodontic surgery is complex and should be avoided in patients with unstable dentitions. Ownership of oral health and control of primary disease is an essential prerequisite for all advanced care (Fig. 13).
Unusual root configuration
Roots should be assessed for access and surgery avoided where the root is unlikely to be prepared adequately. Lower incisors, lingual canals on lower posterior teeth, and palatal roots of upper teeth can be particularly difficult to access. Long roots or limited mouth opening can further complicate procedures.
Proximity to vital structures
The inferior dental, mental and lingual nerves, the maxillary sinuses and the roots of adjacent teeth may be in close proximity to apical lesions. Potential damage involving these structures should be included in the consent and planning process, and surgery avoided if the risk is deemed too high.
Compromised periodontal status
If the apical amputation renders the tooth without sufficient periodontal support, surgery must be avoided.
Compromised restorative status
If the coronal restoration is so mutilated that restoration is impossible, then surgery is futile.
Success in surgical endodontics
Success is usually measured on the basis of radiographic examination and the presence of symptoms (Table 5):
Success/favourable outcomes: the outcome can be classed as successful or favourable if there is complete radiographic healing and an absence of symptoms
Failure/unfavourable outcomes: an unsuccessful outcome is seen where there is no evidence of bony healing and clinical signs or symptoms suggest that endodontic disease is progressing
Uncertain outcomes: if a periapical lesion remains but is asymptomatic, this could be regarded as an uncertain outcome. It may be that there is scar tissue apically rather than regeneration of periodontal ligament, therefore showing incomplete radiographic healing whilst the patient remains asymptomatic.
It is essential to recognise that these are proxy indicators of a cellular process apically rather than a definitive indication of healing. Whilst good bony healing is generally a sign of success, it is impossible to say without histopathalogical examination whether a lesion which appears to have healed with scar tissue remains inflamed.35 Nonetheless, it has been shown that certain radiographic features do correlate with histology indicative of success or failure of surgical endodontic treatment (Table 5); in reality, a more pragmatic approach is often needed in defining success.
To determine long-term success, it is necessary to follow-up the patient clinically and radiographically at regular intervals.16 It has been suggested that, in the short-term, surgical treatment caries a greater success rate than non-surgical treatment, which then levels out between the two treatments in the medium to long-term, most likely due to the persistence of an intraradicular infection.36 Molven et al. demonstrated that the majority of lesions managed with apical surgery classified as having incomplete radiographic healing, remained asymptomatic during 8-12 years of observation.37 It has also been shown that, of cases considered to have healed successfully after one year, 91% remain healed and symptom free at seven years of follow-up (Fig. 14).38 For these reasons, patients who have undergone endodontic surgery tend to be followed up clinically and radiographically for one year.
With the advancement of techniques, instruments and materials, success rates have been increasing. Endodontic microsurgery has been defined as the use of an operating microscope or an endoscope with high-power magnification together with microsurgical instruments, ultrasonic root-end preparation, and more biocompatible filling materials such as IRM, SuperEBA or MTA.1 Recent meta-analyses of these trends suggest a cumulative success rate of 89-93.5% for endodontic microsurgery.1,39,40,41 From these meta-analyses, several factors have been associated with success.
Treatment-related factors
The outcomes of up-to-date endodontic microsurgery, using ultrasonic instruments, magnification and modern root end filling materials, have been compared to those of traditional endodontic surgery which utilises a bur to prepare the root end before filling with amalgam. The use of modern techniques appears to increase the success rate from 59% to 93.5%.1 A further study compared endodontic microsurgery to the use of modern techniques without a microscope. Without the use of higher magnification, the success rate fell from 94% to 88% (Table 6).40
Tooth-related factors
Numerous studies have looked for correlations between tooth-related factors and the success of surgical treatment.42,43,44,45,46 The following factors were identified as having a greater chance of success: periapical lesions <5 mm in size, an absence of pre-operative pain, good radiographic density of the root end filling, and pre-operative probing depths of <3 mm. Maxillary teeth generally had a greater success rate than mandibular teeth, and teeth treated surgically for the second time had a significantly worse prognosis.47
Conclusion
Non-surgical retreatment should always be considered in the first instance when a patient presents with persistent periapical disease. There are certain cases where surgical endodontics may be a more appropriate, if not the only available modality, but careful assessment of both the patient and the tooth is required to ensure that such treatment is appropriate. When indicated, the use of a microsurgical technique will give the greatest opportunity for a successful outcome, with success rates over 90%. Paper two in this series will review techniques, instruments and materials that may contribute to these higher success rates.
References
Setzer F C, Shah S B, Kohli M R, Karabucak B, Kim S. Outcome of endodontic surgery: A meta-analysis of the literature - part 1: Comparison of traditional root-end surgery and endodontic microsurgery. J Endod 2010; 36: 1757-1765.
Ghurye S, McMillan R. Orofacial pain - an update on diagnosis and management. Br Dent J 2017; 223: 639-647.
Hauman C H J, Chandler N P, Tong D C. Endodontic implications of the maxillary sinus: a review. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 127-141.
American Association of Anaesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System. 2014. Available at https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-guidelines/asa-physical-status-classification-system (accessed May 2019).
Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme. Management of Dental Patients Taking Anticoagulants or Antiplatelet Drugs. 2015. Available at http://www.sdcep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SDCEP-Anticoagulants-Guidance.pdf (accessed May 2019).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Anticoagulation - oral. 2015. Available at https://cks.nice.org.uk/anticoagulation-oral (accessed May 2019).
Borromeo G L, Tsao C E, Darby I B, Ebeling P R. A review of the clinical implications of bisphosphonates in dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011; 56: 2-9.
Gibson N, Ferguson J W. Steroid cover for dental patients on long-term steroid medication: proposed clinical guidelines based upon a critical review of the literature. Br Dent J 2004; 197: 681-685.
UK Medicines Information. What steroid supplementation is required for a patient with primary adrenal insufficiency undergoing a dental procedure? 2016. Available at https://www.sps.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NW-QA-323.3-Steroid-supplementation-for-patients-with-adrenal-insufficiency-.pdf (accessed May 2019).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prophylaxis against infective endocarditis: antimicrobial prophylaxis against infective endocarditis in adults and children undergoing interventional procedures. 2008. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg64 (accessed May 2019).
Cahill T J, Dayer M, Prendergast B, Thornhill M. Do patients at risk of infective endocarditis need antibiotics before dental procedures? BMJ 2017; 358: j3942.
Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme. Antibiotic Prophylaxis Against Invective Endocarditis Implementation Advice. 2018. Available at http://www.sdcep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SDCEP-Antibiotic-Prophylaxis-Implementation-Advice.pdf (accessed May 2019)
Lin J, Chandler N P. Electric pulp testing: a review. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 365-374.
Jafarzadeh H, Abbott P V. Review of pulp sensibility tests. Part I: general information and thermal tests. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 738-762.
Alghaithy R A, Qualtrough A J. Pulp sensibility and vitality tests for diagnosing pulpal health in permanent teeth: a critical review. Int Endod J 2017; 50: 135-142.
Evans G, Bishop K, Renton T. Guidelines for Surgical Endodontics. London: The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2012. Available at https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/rcs/fds/publications/surgical_endodontics_2012.pdf (accessed May 2019).
Venskutonis T, Plotino G, Juodzbalys G, Mickevičiene L. The importance of cone-beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems: a review of the literature. J Endod 2014; 40: 1895-1901.
Varshosaz M, Tavakoli M A, Mostafavi M, Baghban A A. Comparison of conventional radiography with cone beam computed tomography for detection of vertical root fractures: an in vitro study. J Oral Sci 2010; 52: 593-597.
Bernardes R A, de Paulo R S, Pereira L O, Duarte M A, Ordinola-Zapata R, de Azevedo J R. Comparative study of cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiographs in diagnosis of lingual-simulated external root resorptions. Dent Traumatol 2012; 28: 268-272.
Horner K. Radiographic selection criteria: new guidelines, old challenges. Br Dent J 2013; 214: 201-213.
Ng Y L, 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: 6-31.
Ng Y L, 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: 583-609.
Nair P N. On the causes of persistent apical periodontitis: a review. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 249-281.
Siqueira J F Jr. Aetiology of root canal treatment failure: why well-treated teeth can fail. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 1-10.
Hancock H H 3rd, Sigurdsson A, Trope M, Moiseiwitsch J. Bacteria isolated after unsuccessful endodontic treatment in a North American population. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91: 579-586.
Saed S M, Ashley M P, Darcey J. Root perforations: aetiology, management strategies and outcomes. The hole truth. Br Dent J 2016; 220: 171-180.
Ng Y L, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: part 2: tooth survival. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 610-625.
Ørstavik D, Pitt Ford T R. Essential Endodontology: Prevention and Treatment of Apical Periodontitis. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.
Rahbaran S, Gilthorpe M S, Harrison S D, Gulabivala K. Comparison of clinical outcome of periapical surgery in endodontic and oral surgery units of a teaching dental hospital: A retrospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 91: 700-709.
Serrano-Giménez M, Sánchez-Torres A, Gay-Escoda C. Prognostic factors on periapical surgery: A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015; 20: e715-e722.
McGuigan M B, Louca C, Duncan H F. Clinical decision-making after endodontic instrument fracture. Br Dent J 2013; 214: 395-400.
Dickie J, McCrosson J. Post removal techniques part 1. Dent Update 2014; 41: 490-492, 495-498.
Love R M, Firth N. Histopathological profile of surgically removed persistent periapical radiolucent lesions of endodontic origin. Int Endod J 2009; 42: 198-202.
Ricucci D, Langeland K. Apical limit of root canal instrumentation and obturation, part 2. A histological study. Int Endod J 1998; 31: 394-409.
Andreasen J O, Rud J. Correlation between histology and radiography in the assessment of healing after endodontic surgery. Int J Oral Surg 1972; 1: 161-173.
Del Fabbro M, Taschieri S, Testori T, Francetti L, Weinstein R L. Surgical versus non-surgical endodontic re-treatment for periradicular lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 18: CD005511.
Molven O, Halse a, Grung B. Incomplete healing (scar tissue) after periapical surgeryradiographic findings 8 to 12 years after treatment. J Endod 1996; 22: 264-268.
Rubinstein R A, Kim S. Long-term follow-up of cases considered healed one year after apical microsurgery. J Endod 2002; 28: 378-383.
Tsesis I, Faivishevsky V, Kfir A, Rosen E. Outcome of Surgical Endodontic Treatment Performed by a Modern Technique: A Meta-analysis of Literature. J Endod 2009; 35: 1505-1511.
Setzer F C, Kohli M R, Shah S B, Karabucak B, Kim S. Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature - Part 2: Comparison of endodontic microsurgical techniques with and without the use of higher magnification. J Endod 2012; 38: 1-10.
Tsesis I, Rosen E, Taschieri S, Telishevsky Strauss Y, Ceresoli V, Del Fabbro M. Outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment performed by a modern technique: An updated meta-analysis of the literature. J Endod 2013; 39: 332-339.
Lui J N, Khin M M, Krishnaswamy G, Chen N N. Prognostic factors relating to the outcome of endodontic microsurgery. J Endod 2014; 40: 1071-1076.
García-Guerrero C, Guauque S Q, Molano N, Pineda G A, Nino-Barrera J L, Marín-Zuluaga D J. Predictors of clinical outcomes in endodontic microsurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. G Ital Endod 2017; 31: 2-13.
Testori T, Capelli M, Milani S, Weinstein R L. Success and failure in periradicular surgery: a longitudinal retrospective analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 493-498.
von Arx T, Peñarrocha M, Jensen S. Prognostic factors in apical surgery with root-end filling: a meta-analysis. J Endod 2010; 36: 957-973.
Friedman S. The prognosis and expected outcome of apical surgery. Endod Topics 2005; 11: 219-262.
Peterson J, Gutmann J L. The outcome of endodontic resurgery: a systematic review. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 169-175.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Monaghan, L., Jadun, S. & Darcey, J. Endodontic microsurgery. Part one: diagnosis, patient selection and prognoses. Br Dent J 226, 940–948 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0415-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0415-3
- Springer Nature Limited