| 1. |
- Dawson, Victoria S., et al.
(author)
-
Further Interventions After Root Canal Treatment Are Most Common in Molars and Teeth Restored with Direct Restorations : A 10–11-Year Follow-Up of the Adult Swedish Population
- 2024
-
In: Journal of Endodontics. - : Elsevier. - 0099-2399 .- 1878-3554.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: The aims were to investigate 1) the frequency of nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, extraction, and further restorative treatment during a follow-up of 10 to 11 years after root filling and compare the frequencies according to tooth group and type of coronal restoration, and 2) the timing of nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, and extraction.Methods: Data were collected from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency's register. A search for treatment codes identified teeth root filled in 2009 and the type of coronal restoration (direct, indirect, unspecified) registered within 6 months of root filling. The root-filled teeth were followed 10-11 years, and further interventions were recorded. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis.Results: In 2009, root fillings were registered for 215,611 individuals/teeth. Nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, and extraction were undertaken in 3.5%, 1.4%, and 20% teeth, respectively. The frequency of further interventions varied with respect to tooth group and type of coronal restoration, but only slightly for endodontic retreatments. Further interventions, except for root-end surgery, were registered more often for molars and directly restored teeth (P < 0.001). The majority of endodontic retreatments were undertaken within 4 years, while extractions were evenly distributed over 10-11 years.Conclusions: The frequency numbers of nonsurgical retreatment and root-end surgery were low, despite one in five root-filled teeth registered as extracted. Further interventions were most common in molars and directly restored teeth. Endodontic retreatments were performed more often during the first 4 years.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dawson, Victoria S., et al.
(author)
-
Further Interventions after Root Canal Treatment Are Most Common in Molars and Teeth Restored with Direct Restorations : A 10–11-Year Follow-Up of the Adult Swedish Population
- 2024
-
In: Journal of Endodontics. - : Elsevier. - 0099-2399 .- 1878-3554.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: The aims were to investigate 1) the frequency of nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, extraction, and further restorative treatment during a follow-up of 10–11 years after root filling and compare the frequencies according to tooth group and type of coronal restoration and 2) the timing of nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, and extraction. Methods: Data were collected from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency's register. A search for treatment codes identified teeth root filled in 2009 and the type of coronal restoration (direct, indirect, and unspecified) registered within 6 months of root filling. The root-filled teeth were followed 10–11 years, and further interventions were recorded. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: In 2009, root fillings were registered for 215,611 individuals/teeth. Nonsurgical retreatment, root-end surgery, and extraction were undertaken in 3.5%, 1.4%, and 20% teeth, respectively. The frequency of further interventions varied with respect to tooth group and type of coronal restoration, but only slightly for endodontic retreatments. Further interventions, except for root-end surgery, were registered more often for molars and directly restored teeth (P < .001). The majority of endodontic retreatments were undertaken within 4 years, while extractions were evenly distributed over 10–11 years. Conclusions: The frequency numbers of nonsurgical retreatment and root-end surgery were low, despite 1 in 5 root-filled teeth registered as extracted. Further interventions were most common in molars and directly restored teeth. Endodontic retreatments were performed more often during the first 4 years.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wigsten, Emma, 1984, et al.
(author)
-
General dental practitioners' fees for root canal treatment, coronal restorationand follow-on treatment in the adult population in Sweden: A 10-year follow-up of data from the Swedish Dental Register
- 2024
-
In: Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 2057-4347. ; 10:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: To analyze the accumulated fees connected with root filling, permanent coronal restoration and follow-on treatment charged by Swedish dentists over a 10–11-year follow-up period. Furthermore, analyzing these fees with reference to the type of restoration, tooth group, and the root-filled teeth which survived compared to those requiring extraction. Material and Methods: In 2009, the data register of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency recorded a total of 215,611 teeth as root-filled. The accumulated fees for each tooth encompassed the following interventions: initial root filling, coronal restorations, and follow-up treatments during the designated period. The outcomes were analyzed using descriptive and analytic statistics, including ttests and one-way analysis of variance. The fees are presented in Euros (€1 = SEK 8.94). Results: The total accumulated fees for root fillings amounted to 72 million Euros: the mean fee per root filled tooth was €333.6. The total mean fee over a 10–11-year period, comprising root canal treatment, coronal restorations, and any follow-up treatments, was €923.4. Root-filled teeth with indirect restorations presented a higher mean fee (€1 279.3) compared to those with direct restorations (€829.4) or those without specified restorations (€832.7; p <.001). Moreover, molars presented a significantly higher mean fee (€966.4) compared to premolars (€882.8) and anterior teeth (€891.3; p <.001). Lastly, the mean fee for extracted teeth was €1225.3, which was higher compared to those who survived the follow-up period (€848.0; p <.001). Conclusions: Fees charged by general dental practitioners for root-filled teeth accumulate over time, probably due to the need for further treatment of the tooth. The total mean fee was significantly higher for molars and root-filled teeth with indirect restorations. However, an analysis of the total costs would require prospective clinical cost-effectiveness studies.
|
|
