IADR Abstract Archives
Outcome of endodontic treated teeth vs implant restoration: Systematic-review
Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the treatment and/or patient-report outcomes between endodontically-treated teeth and dental implant restoration. The primary aim was to determine which treatment modality offers more favorable outcomes in terms of treatment and/or patient-reported outcome
Methods: A literature search from three databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), published up to July 2024, were conducted. The review protocol was based on PI(E)CO. P (population) was the teeth with pulp and periapical disease, E (exposure) was endodontically treated teeth, C (comparison) was dental implant restoration, and O (outcomes) were the treatment and/ patient-reported outcomes (oral health-related quality of life, satisfaction). Randomized clinical trials, comparative clinical trials (CCTs), prospective, and retrospective study which directly compared between two treatments were included. A manual search was also performed. The quality of the studies was appraised using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Two reviewers (C.S., N.L.) independently screened and selected the studies based on specified inclusion criteria. Any disagreements were resolved with third reviewer.
Results: A total of nine retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. These studies demonstrated that there was no difference in survival outcome between two treatment modalities. However, implant placement has a higher risk with further intervention required. Additionally, the overall OHRQoL of both treatments was not different, except for psychological discomfort and psychological disability that more frequently occurred in endodontically-treated tooth
Conclusions: Both endodontic treatment and implant placement are recognized as valid and complementary treatment options. The decision to choose either treatment should be based on multiple factors, such as tooth’s restorability, cost-effectiveness, and patient factors.
Methods: A literature search from three databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), published up to July 2024, were conducted. The review protocol was based on PI(E)CO. P (population) was the teeth with pulp and periapical disease, E (exposure) was endodontically treated teeth, C (comparison) was dental implant restoration, and O (outcomes) were the treatment and/ patient-reported outcomes (oral health-related quality of life, satisfaction). Randomized clinical trials, comparative clinical trials (CCTs), prospective, and retrospective study which directly compared between two treatments were included. A manual search was also performed. The quality of the studies was appraised using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Two reviewers (C.S., N.L.) independently screened and selected the studies based on specified inclusion criteria. Any disagreements were resolved with third reviewer.
Results: A total of nine retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. These studies demonstrated that there was no difference in survival outcome between two treatment modalities. However, implant placement has a higher risk with further intervention required. Additionally, the overall OHRQoL of both treatments was not different, except for psychological discomfort and psychological disability that more frequently occurred in endodontically-treated tooth
Conclusions: Both endodontic treatment and implant placement are recognized as valid and complementary treatment options. The decision to choose either treatment should be based on multiple factors, such as tooth’s restorability, cost-effectiveness, and patient factors.