Success and failure in periradicular surgeryA longitudinal retrospective analysis

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to compare the success rates of 2 different periapical surgical techniques, the traditional technique with rotary instruments and the ultrasonic technique, which uses ultrasonic retrotips. A longitudinal retrospective study was carried out on 302 apices (181 teeth) that had undergone periapical surgery. Surgical outcome was evaluated by 2 independent operators using standardized periapical radiographs. Each radiographic finding was classified into 1 of 4 groups: complete healing, incomplete healing, uncertain healing, and unsatisfactory outcome (failure). An SAS statistical analysis system was used for data management and analysis. Prognostic factors were determined by means of the Fisher exact test. Complete healing after 4.6 years (the average follow-up period) was observed in 68% of the teeth treated through the use of the standard technique and 85% of those treated through the use of the ultrasonic technique. The success rate increased as the follow-up period lengthened (68.4% at 2 years vs 80% at 6 years). The success rate was higher in maxillary (77.9%) than in mandibular (66.1%) teeth. A comparison between the retrofilling materials was not feasible because all teeth in the standard technique group were retrofilled with amalgam and all teeth in the ultrasonic group were retrofilled with Super-EBA. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:493-8)