Endodontic failures

sa3edbajafar 42,168 views 68 slides Mar 27, 2013
Slide 1
Slide 1 of 68
Slide 1
1
Slide 2
2
Slide 3
3
Slide 4
4
Slide 5
5
Slide 6
6
Slide 7
7
Slide 8
8
Slide 9
9
Slide 10
10
Slide 11
11
Slide 12
12
Slide 13
13
Slide 14
14
Slide 15
15
Slide 16
16
Slide 17
17
Slide 18
18
Slide 19
19
Slide 20
20
Slide 21
21
Slide 22
22
Slide 23
23
Slide 24
24
Slide 25
25
Slide 26
26
Slide 27
27
Slide 28
28
Slide 29
29
Slide 30
30
Slide 31
31
Slide 32
32
Slide 33
33
Slide 34
34
Slide 35
35
Slide 36
36
Slide 37
37
Slide 38
38
Slide 39
39
Slide 40
40
Slide 41
41
Slide 42
42
Slide 43
43
Slide 44
44
Slide 45
45
Slide 46
46
Slide 47
47
Slide 48
48
Slide 49
49
Slide 50
50
Slide 51
51
Slide 52
52
Slide 53
53
Slide 54
54
Slide 55
55
Slide 56
56
Slide 57
57
Slide 58
58
Slide 59
59
Slide 60
60
Slide 61
61
Slide 62
62
Slide 63
63
Slide 64
64
Slide 65
65
Slide 66
66
Slide 67
67
Slide 68
68

About This Presentation

Endodontic failures


Slide Content

endodontic failures endodontic failures
and retreatmentand retreatment

Introdution
•In different studies success rate ranges from 54
percent to 95 percent.
•The definition of success is ambiguous
- stringent : radiographic and clinical normalcy
- lenient : only clinical normalcy

Endodontic treatment
outcome
•Healed:
both clinical and radiographic presentations are
normal
•Healing:
it’s a dynamic process, reduced radiolucency
combined with normal clinical presentation
•Disease:
No change or increase in radiolucency, clinical
signs may or may not be present or vice versa

Evaluation of success
•Success or failures following endodontic therapy
could be evaluated from combination of clinical,
histopathological and radio graphical criteria.

Clinical evaluation for
success
•No tenderness to percussion or palpation
•Normal tooth mobility
•No evidence of subjective discomfort
•Tooth having normal form, function and
aesthetics
•No sign of infection or swelling
•No sinus tract or integrated periodontal disease
•Minimal to no scarring or discoloration

Radiographic evaluation
for success
•Normal or slightly thickened periodontal ligament
space
•Reduction or elimination of previous rarefaction
•No evidence of resorption
•Normal lamina dura
•A dense three dimensional obturation of canal
space

Histological evaluation for
success
•Absence of inflammation
•Regeneration of periodontal ligament fibers
•Presence of osseous repair
•Repair of cementum
•Absence of resorption
•Repair of previously resorbed areas

Causes of the endodontic
failures
Bacteria somewhere in the root canal system
Divided into local and systemic

Factors affecting success or
failure of endodontic therapy
in every case
•Diagnosis and the treatment planning
•Radiographic interpretation
•Anatomy of the tooth and root canal system
•Debridement of the root canal space

Factors affecting success or
failure of endodontic therapy
in every case
•Quality and extent of apical seal
•Quality of post endodontic restoration
•Systemic health of the patient
•Skill of the operator

Factors affecting success or
failure of a particular case
Factors affecting success or
failure of a particular case
•Pupal and Periodontal status
•Size of periapical radioleucency
•Canal anatomy
•Crown and root fracture

Factors affecting success or
failure of a particular case
Factors affecting success or
failure of a particular case
•Iatrogenic errors
•Extent and quality of the obturation
•Quality of the post endodontic restoration
•Time of post treatment evaluation

Local Factors causing
endodontic failures
•Infection
•Incomplete debridement of the root canal system
•Excessive hemorrhage
•Chemical irritants
•Iatrogenic errors

Infection
•infected and necrotic pulp tissue→main irritant to
the periapical tissues
•The host parasite relationship、virulence of
microorganisms , ability of infected tissues to
heal→influence the repair of the periapical tissues
•Endo success →debridement

Incomplete debridement of
the root canal system
•Main objective of root canal therapy→complete
elimination
of the microorganisms and their
byproducts
•Poor debridement → residual
microorganisms、byproducts and
tissue debris → recolonize

Excessive hemorrhage
•Extirpation of pulp and instrumentation beyond
periapical tissues
•Local accumulation of the blood→mild
inflammation
•Extravasated blood cells and fluid:foreign body
nidus for bacterial growth

Over instrumentation
•Instrumentation beyond apical foramen→PDL
and alveolar bone trauma→the prognosis of
endodontic treatment ↓

Chemical irritants
•Intracanal medicaments and irrigating solution
→extruded in the periapical tissues→the
prognosis of endodontic treatment ↓
•One should take care while Using medicaments to
avoid their periapical
extrusion

Iatrogenic errors
•Separated instruments—
•Caused by improper or overuse of
• instruments and forcing them in curved
canals
•Prognosis :no much affected in vital pulps
poor in necrotic tissue.

Iatrogenic errors
•Canal blockage and ledge formation—
•Accumulation of dentin chips or tissue debris
prevent the instruments to reach its
full working length
•Ledge formation—straight instruments in
curved canals
•These lead to bacteria & debris remained
endo failure

Iatrogenic errors
•Perforations—
•Lack of knowledge of anatomy of the tooth,
attention, misdirection of the instruments
•Prognosis:location, time, perforation seal and
size
•Poor prognosis  remaining
infected tissue

Iatrogenic errors
•Incompletely filled teeth—
•Teeth filled more than 2mm short of apex
•Several studies shown:
• poor prognosis—underfillings with necrotic
pulps
• Overfilling of root canals—
•Overfilling extending 2mm beyond

• radiographic apex
•Continuous irritation of the periapical
• tissues endo failure

Iatrogenic errors
•Anatomic factors—
•Such as:overly curved canals, calcifications,
• numerous lateral and accessory canals,
• bifurcations, C or S shaped canals
•Problems in cleaning and shaping &
• incomplete filling of root canals
•  endodontic failure

Iatrogenic errors
•Root fractures—
•Partial or complete fractures of roots
•Prognosis of teeth:
• vertical root is poor than horizontal fractures
•Traumatic occlusion –
•Cause endo failures because of its effect on
• periodontium

Systemic factors causing
endodontic failures
•Nutritional
deficiencies
•Diabetes mellitus
•Renal failure
•Blood dyscrasias
•Hormonal imbalance
•Autoimmune disorders
•Opportunistic
infections
•Aging
•Long term steroid
therapy

Endodontic retreatment
Before going/performing
Case selection
Prognosis ,Contraindications and problems
Steps

Before going to endodontic
retreatment
•when should Treatment be considered
•Patient’s needs
•Strategic importance of the tooth
•Periodontal evaluation of the tooth
•Chair time & cost

Before performing to
endodontic retreatment
•May to prevent the potential disease
•Remove/remade extensive coronal restoration
•Technical problems
•May not achieve better results
•Filling materials have to be removed
•Prognosis could be poorer
•Patient might be more apprehensive

Case selection
•Careful history
•Anatomy of root canal , canal curvature,
calcifications,unusual configurations
•Quality of obturation
•Iatrogenic complications
•Cooperation of the patient

Factors affecting prognosis
of endodontic treatment
•Periapical radiolucency
•Quality of the obturation
•Apical extension of the obturation material
•Bacterial status
•Observation period
•Postendodontic coronal restoration
•Iatrogenic complication

Contraindications of
endodontic retreatment
•Unfavorable root anatomy
•Untreatable root resorptions or perforations
•Root or bifurcation caries
•Insufficient crown/root ratio

Problems of endodontic
retreatment
•Unpredictable result
•Frustration
•Cost factor
•Time consuming

Steps of Retreatment
1.Coronal disassembly
2.Establish access to root canal system
3.Remove canal obstructions
4.Establish patency
5.Thorough cleaning, shaping and obturation of
the canal

1. Coronal Disassembly
•Removal of existing
coronal restoration
•Access made through
coronal restoration

Advantages of gaining
access through
original restoration:
a.Facilitate rubber dam
placement
b.Maintaining form,
function and aesthetics
c.Reducing the
cost of replacement
Disadvantages of
retaining a
restoration:
a.Reduce visibility and
accessibility
b.Increased risks of
irreparable errors
c.Increased risks of
microbial infection if
crown margins are
poorly adapted

Advice:
Remove the existing restoration
Especially: poor marginal
adaptation, secondary caries
Place temporary crown
to maintain form, function
and aesthetics.

2. Establish Access to Root
Canal System
Teeth restored with post and
core:
1.Post and core need to be
removed for gaining access to
root canal system
2.Post and core can be perforated
to gain access

Posts can be removed by:
1.Weakening retention of
posts by use of ultrasonic
vibration.
2.Forceful pulling of posts but it increases the risk
of root fracture
3.Removing posts with the help of special pliers
using post removal systems

Post Removal System(PRS)

Post Removal System(PRS)
•5 various designed trephines
•Corresponding taps(microtubular tap)
•Torque bar
•Transmetal bur
•Rubber bumpers
•Extracting plier

1-Transmental bur
Effeciently dooming of the post head

2-Add lubricant
•EX: RC Prep
•Be placed on the post head to further facilitate the
machining process

3-Trephine bur
Use the largest bur to machine down
the coronal 2-3 mm of the post.

4-Rubber bumper
inserted on the tab & pushed on the occlusal
surface.
Act as a cushion, distribute the loads and
protect thetooth during the removal
procedure.

5-Microtubular tap
•Inserted against the post head.
•Screwed it into post with counter clockwise
direction and strongly engage the post.

Post removal plier
•Mount the post removal plier on tubular tap
•Ultrasonic instrument using/torque bar inserting
plier
Tubular tap
Rubber bumper
Screw knob
Ultrasonic instrument

1 -Nonsurgical Removal of Posts Broken Instruments - YouTube_x264.mp4
Post removal plier

Removing Canal
Obstructions and
Establishing Patency

Silver Point Removal
A- Microsurgical forceps

Silver point removal
B-Ultrasonic

Siver point removal
C- Using Hedstroem files(H-files)

Silver Point Removal
E- Post removal system kit.
D- Instrument removal system(IRS).

Gutta-Percha Removal
•The relative difficulty in removing gutta-percha is
influenced by some factors of canal system:
Length
Diameter
Curvature
Internal configuration
•Progressive Manner :
gutta-percha is best removed from canal in
progressive manner to prevent its extrusion
periapically

Gutta-Percha Removal
•Coronal portion of gutta-percha should always be
explored by Gates-Gliddens to:
Quickly : Remove gutta-percha quickly
Solvent : Provide space for solvents
Convenience : Improve convenience form
•Gutta-percha can be removed by using:
Solvents
Hand instruments
Rotary instruments
Microdebrider

1.Solvents
•GP is soluble in:
Chloroform:most effective but carcinogenic with
high concentratin , excessive filling in pulp
chamber is avoided
Methyl chloroform
Benzene
Xylene
Eucalyptol oil
Halothane
•GP dissolution should be supplemented by using
hand instruments

2. Hand Instruments

Used mainly in apical portion of the canal.
• Hedstroem files
• Hot endodontic instrument like Reamer or files
Poorly condenced GP can be pulled easily

3. Rotary Instruments
•They are Safe to be used in straight canals
Recently:
•ProTaper universal systems
Consisting of file :D1 D2 D3
500-700 rpm

Protaper universal system
•D1 :
Remove filling from the coronal third
•D2 :
Remove filling from the middle third
•D3 :
Remove filling from appical third

Microdebriders

A small files with 90 degrees bends

Removing remaining gutta-percha on the sides
of canal walls

Pastes and Cement

Soft setting pastes

Penetrated by endodontic instruments

Hard setting cements

Softened by solvents: xylene, eucalyptol......
Then removed by files .

Ultrasonic devices

Separated Instruments and
Foreign Objects

Coronal third – attempt retrieval

Middle third – attempt retrieval or bypass

Apical third – surgical treat

Separated Instruments and
Foreign Objects

Attempt retrieval

Mechanism → Stieglitz pliers, Massermann
extractor

Vibration → Ultrasonics

Accessibility → Modified Gates Glidden
bur

Bypass

Reamers or files with copious irrigation

Surgical treat

Apicoectomy

Ultrasonic
4-endo(instrument removal) - YouTube_x264.mp4

Instrument removal system (IRS)
Can be used to remove the
broken files
microtube
screw wedge

The beveled end of the microtube
oriented toward the outer wall of the
canal to “scoop up” the head of the
broken file.
The introduction of the screw wedge which is
rotated CCW to engage and displace the head
of the file out the side window.

Completion of the
Retreatment

Thorough cleaning, shaping and obturation

The outcome of retreatment

Short-term: no pain and swelling

Long-term: depended regaining canal patency &
obturation of the root canal system

Retreatment is mostly associated with procedural
complication.

Effective communication is required b/t dentist & patient.