Prediction of periapical status and tooth extraction
L. –L. Kirkevang1,2, D. Ørstavik2, G. Bahrami3, A. Wenzel1& M. Væth4
1Section of Oral Radiology, Department of Dentistry, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark;2Department of Endodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;3Section of Prosthetics, Department of Dentistry, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus; and4Section for Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Abstract
Kirkevang L–L, Ørstavik D, Bahrami G, Wenzel A, Væth M.Prediction of periapical status and tooth extraction.
International Endodontic Journal, 50, 5–14, 2017.
Aim To describe and analyse risk factors associated with prediction of periapical status, assessed using the full-scale Periapical Index (PAI) supplemented with extraction as outcome variable.
Methodology In 1997–1998, 616 randomly selected individuals from Aarhus County, Denmark, underwent a full-mouth radiographic survey. All 616 were re-invited in 2003–2004 and in 2008–2009, when 473 and 363 persons, respectively, consented and attended a new radiographic examination. The study population of the present investigation included 330 persons who had participated in all three exami- nations, and 143 persons who had participated in the first and second examination only. Using the full- mouth radiographic survey and interview informa- tion, the following variables were assessed: on person level – age, gender, smoking habits and number of teeth; on tooth level– presence of tooth, PAI, root fill- ing, caries, marginal bone level, restoration, jaw and tooth group. The outcome variable was the 5 score PAI supplemented with extraction. The observation period was 5 years. Ordered logistic regression analy- ses were carried out for root filled and non-root filled
teeth separately. The Regional Committee of Ethics approved the study.
Results For both root filled teeth and non-root filled teeth, the baseline PAI score was the most important predictive factor of periapical status and extraction (P< 0.0001). Non-root filled teeth had in general a better outcome than root filled teeth. However, in non-root filled teeth, several other factors had a sig- nificant influence on the outcome, and the risk esti- mates were larger and showed a more pronounced variation between the different categories of predictive factors. For root filled teeth few variables, other than baseline PAI score, influenced the outcome signifi- cantly.
Conclusion The full-scale PAI was the strongest predictive factor of periapical status or extraction even when adjusted for additional factors, such as marginal bone level. A high baseline PAI score increased the risk for an impaired outcome. The large difference in risk estimates for non-root filled compared to root filled teeth documents the importance of separate analyses/studies for identification and quantification of predictive factors associated with periapical status and extraction of a tooth.
Keywords: apical periodontitis, extraction, PAI, prediction, risk factors.
Received 19 August 2015; accepted 11 November 2015
Introduction
Apical periodontitis (AP) is an inflammatory process in the periapical tissues that may develop if bacteria infect the dental pulp space. Periapical status is, how- ever, not only a question of disease or no disease, but Correspondence: Lise-Lotte Kirkevang, Department of
Endodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Den- tistry, University of Oslo, P.B 1109 Blindern, 0317 N-OSLO, Norway (e-mail: l.l.kirkevang@odont.uio.no).
can be seen as a continuum ranging from healthy to severe disease (AP). To assess improvement or deterio- ration in periapical status, a more detailed assessment scale would therefore be preferable. The Periapical Index (PAI) is the only radiographic registration sys- tem that allows differentiation in severity of periapical disease. The full-scale PAI has the potential to moni- tor changes along a disease continuum (Ørstavik et al. 1986, Kirkevang et al. 2014). In a recent Dan- ish study, it was demonstrated that each of the five PAI scores had a specific predictive value in relation to the future periapical status both regarding non- root filled and root filled teeth (Kirkevang et al.
2014).
Besides the preoperative diagnosis (initial PAI), sev- eral other factors have been investigated in relation to the outcome of a root canal treatment (Strindberg 1956, Ørstavik 1996, Chugal et al. 2001, Marending et al. 2005, Ng et al. 2011a, Kirkevang et al. 2014).
The effect of different factors has, however, not previ- ously been evaluated using a more detailed scale for assessment of outcome.
The aim of this study was to describe and analyse risk factors associated with prediction of tooth status, assessed using the full-scale Periapical Index (PAI) supplemented with extraction as outcome variable, in a randomly selected population sample. PAI scores and tooth extraction were registered in successive examinations preformed approximately 5 years apart.
Material and methods
In 1997, 616 randomly selected adults from Aarhus County, Denmark, received a full-mouth radiographic survey. In 2003 and in 2008, the 1997 cohort was contacted again and offered another full-mouth radio- graphic survey. In 2003, 473 persons participated in the second radiographic examination and in 2008, 363 persons attended the third radiographic examina- tion. The latter group included 33 persons who par- ticipated only in the first and the third examination, and they were not included in this study. For further details on the study population, see Kirkevang et al.
(2001, 2005, 2007, 2012, 2014). Thus, this study population consisted of a group 1 of 330 persons, who had participated in all three examinations, and a group 2 of 143 persons, who had participated in the first and second examination only.
For each tooth, a baseline registration and a second registration approximately 5 years later were per- formed. Therefore, teeth in persons who participated
in three examinations (group 1) contributed with information from two periods (1997–2003 and 2003–2008). Teeth amongst persons who partici- pated in two examinations only (group 2) contributed with information from one period (1997–2003). The Regional Committee of Ethics approved the study design in 1997, 2003 and 2008.
Radiographic recording
On each occasion, all participants underwent a full- mouth radiographic survey consisting of 14 periapical and two bitewing radiographs. The radiographs were taken by a ‘GX 1000’ X-ray unit (Gendex Corpora- tion, Milwaukee, WI, USA), using the paralleling tech- nique, 70 kV, 10 mA, a film-focus distance of 28 cm.
Film processing was automated (D€urr 1330, AC 245L, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany).
In 1997, Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film was used (East- man Kodak, Rochester, NY, USA), and in 2003 and 2008, Kodak Insight film (Eastman Kodak) was used.
In all three studies, the fastest and most recent film on the market was chosen (Ludlow et al. 2001) in order to minimize the radiation dose to the partici- pants.
Registrations
One observer examined all radiographs (LLK). All teeth were recorded according to the FDI nomencla- ture. Third molars were excluded. The following vari- ables were assessed: on person level – gender, age (4 categories), number of teeth (4 categories), smoking habits, group and period; on tooth level – presence of tooth, PAI, root filling, caries, marginal bone level, restoration, jaw and tooth group (Table 1). Calibra- tion of the observer to PAI was performed as described by Ørstavik et al. (1986) resulting in a Cohen0s Kappa= 0.81.
Data management and statistical analysis
2The statistical analyses aimed at assessing the predic- tive value of a number of baseline characteristics. The outcome (dependent) variable in these analyses was the periapical status (PAI scores 1–5) and extraction of a tooth added as an ultimate sixth stage. In the analysis, the predictive value of person- and tooth-spe- cific factors at the baseline registration was assessed by including these factors as independent variables in an ordinal logistic regression. The predictive value of
the factors was described by mutually adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates that the predictive factor was associated with an increased risk of poorer outcome (relative to the reference category) at the next exami- nation. More specifically, if an inadequate restoration has an odds ratio of, say 3, then for all dichotomies of the outcome categories in ‘good outcome’ and a ‘bad outcome’ (5 different possibilities) the odds of a bad outcome is 3 times larger for a tooth with an inade- quate restoration than for a tooth with no restoration (but otherwise identical).
The analyses applied robust standard errors, derived from a GEE estimation procedure to accom- modate dependencies between teeth from the same individual. The categorization of the predictive factors
used in the analyses can be seen in Table 1. The analyses were stratified according to the presence or absence of a root filling at baseline examination, because the influence of almost all of the predictive factors differed significantly between root filled and non-root filled teeth. Stata version 13 was used for all statistical analyses (StataCorp 2013, College Station, TX, USA).
Results
Group 1 consisted of 330 individuals (mean age 42.9 years, 8744 teeth). Group 2 consisted of 143 individuals (mean age 42.3 years, 3696 teeth). In total, 21133 baseline-outcome registrations were available. Of these registrations, 46 were not included in the analyses due to insufficient quality of one or both radiographs (Kirkevang et al. 2014).
Table 2 presents cross-tabulations of outcome by PAI scores and extractions versus PAI scores at base- line, stratified on the presence or absence of a root filling at baseline examination. The baseline distribu- tion of the PAI scores in the non-root filled teeth showed that 98% had PAI score 1 at baseline. For the root filled teeth, the corresponding percentage was 45%.
In non-root filled teeth, the periapical status at baseline was by far the most important predictive fac- tor for the outcome, periapical status and tooth extraction. Furthermore, evidence of either present or previous disease (caries lesions, marginal, coronal restorations) had a significant influence on the out- come. The outcome differed considerably amongst tooth groups, molars having a worse outcome than more anterior teeth (Table 3).
Person-specific factors had some predictive value for the non-root filled teeth, but not as pronounced as the tooth-specific factors. If a person had few teeth, the remaining teeth had an increased risk for a worse outcome compared to a person with all teeth, and if a person smoked, there was also a tendency that the teeth had a worse outcome compared to a non- smoker. Persons in group 1 differed from persons in group 2, who had a slightly higher risk for a worse outcome for non-root filled teeth (Table 3).
Figure 1 summarizes the results of the ordinal logistic regression analysis of the data on non-root filled teeth. For each tooth, the predicted outcome dis- tribution at follow-up relative to that of a reference tooth (see Table 5) was described by an odds ratio.
Figure 1a shows the predicted probability distribution Table 1 Categorization of predictive factors
Parameters Categoriesa
Person specific
Gender Female, male
Age 20–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60+
Smoking No, yes
Group Group 1 (three registrations), group 2 (two registrations)
Period 1997–2003, 2003–2008
Number of teeth ≤23, 24–25, 26–27, 28 Tooth specific
Primary carious lesion
No (caries or caries in enamel), yes (caries in dentine)
Secondary carious lesion
No (caries or caries in enamel), yes (caries in dentine)
Periapical Index (PAI)
PAI 1 (normal periapical structures), PAI 2 (small changes in bone structure), PAI 3 (changes in bone structure with some mineral loss), PAI 4 (apical periodontitis with well-defined radiolucent area), PAI 5 (severe apical periodontitis with exacerbating features) (Ørstavik et al. 1986) Restoration No restoration, adequate
(radiographically sealed filling or crown), inadequate (radiographic signs of overhangs or open margins of filling or crown)
Marginal bone level <3 mm, 3–4 mm, >4 mm Root filling No, root filling material in the root
canal
Root filling, length ≤3 mm from apex, >3 mm short or overfilling
Root filling, voidsl No or few voids, extensive voids Tooth group Anterior (incisors and canines),
premolars, molars
Jaw Maxilla, mandible
aCategories separated by comma.
of outcomes as a function of the odds ratio for the teeth. An odds ratio of 1 gives the predicted distribu- tion of a reference tooth. Also shown are predictions for two additional teeth. Tooth 1 differs from a refer- ence tooth regarding: age (50–59 years), restoration (adequate) and tooth group (maxillary premolar).
Tooth 1 then has an odds ratio of 11.8 relative to a reference tooth. Tooth 2 differs from Tooth 1 regard- ing: PAI (PAI 3) and restoration (inadequate). The estimated odds ratio for Tooth 2 was 380.
The distribution of the tooth-specific odds ratios for non-root filled teeth is shown in Fig. 1b. More than half of the teeth (57%) had an odds ratio <10. The predicted probability of a PAI score 1 was at least 98% for these teeth. Few teeth (5%) had an odds ratio larger than 100. These teeth had a much worse out- come, the predicted probability of a PAI 1 outcome score being 86% or less.
Also for root filled teeth, the baseline PAI score influenced the outcome significantly, but apart from the PAI score few variables had a significant predic- tive value (Table 4). Tooth group and jaw, presence of a carious lesion and reduced marginal bone level were associated with a slightly impaired outcome of a tooth. Molars were at higher risk of a worse outcome than more anterior teeth. The risk estimates were, however, much lower compared to non-root filled teeth. Males had significantly increased risk, but the other person-specific factors seemed not relevant for assessment of outcome in relation to root filled teeth (Table 4).
Figure 2 summarizes the results of the analysis of the data on root filled teeth. The predicted probabil- ity distribution of the outcomes as a function of the odds ratio for the teeth is shown in Fig. 2a. The ref- erence tooth, Tooth 1 and Tooth 2 shown in the fig- ure are root filled teeth, but otherwise identical to the corresponding teeth in Fig. 1a. For root filled teeth, Tooth 1 has an odds ratio of 8.9 relative to the reference tooth, and the odds ratio for Tooth 2 is 71. Figure 2b shows the distribution of the tooth- specific odds ratios for root filled teeth. Approxi- mately one in six of the root filled teeth had an odds ratio <10. The predicted probability of a PAI score 1 was at least 79% for these teeth. A considerable number of root filled teeth (26%) had an odds ratio larger than 100. These teeth had an increased risk of a worse outcome, the probability of a PAI 1 out- come score being at most 27%.
Table 5 compares the predicted outcome distribu- tions for a non-root filled reference tooth and a root filled reference tooth. The non-root filled reference tooth has a much more favourable predicted outcome.
Thus, for <1% of the non-root filled teeth (0.9%), the predicted risk of extraction was higher than 10%, whereas almost a quarter of the root filled teeth (22.4%) had a predicted risk of extraction that was higher than 10%.
A supplementary analysis assessed the influence of the quality of the root filling on the predicted out- come distribution. The reference categories for root filling quality were as follows: ‘<3 mm from apex’
Table 2 Baseline PAI scores and outcome PAI scores stratified according to the absence (a) of presence (b) of a root filling
Follow-up
Baseline PAI 1 PAI 2 PAI 3 PAI 4 PAI 5 ex. non-reg. Total
(a)
PAI 1 19 123 166 217 37 24 85 25 19 677
PAI 2 143 19 19 1 3 6 0 191
PAI 3 21 1 64 6 5 26 0 123
PAI 4 4 0 9 6 4 6 0 29
PAI 5 2 0 5 1 3 4 0 15
Total 19 293 186 314 51 39 127 25 20 035
(b)
PAI 1 361 17 75 14 3 16 2 488
PAI 2 51 8 24 5 0 2 0 90
PAI 3 103 14 147 35 15 35 1 350
PAI 4 16 1 30 32 9 18 0 106
PAI 5 5 0 4 12 14 11 1 47
Total 536 40 280 98 41 82 4 1081
Excluded: 17 transitions for which the PAI at baseline could not be registered.
and ‘no or few voids’ (Table 1). Long or short root fillings (OR= 2.37; 95% CI: 1.86–3.03) and the pres- ence of voids (OR= 2.14; 95% CI: 1.68–2.74) had a significant association with a worse outcome than adequate root fillings, in unadjusted analyses (both P< 0.001). These associations weakened somewhat, but remained significant, when adjusting for all other independent variables except ‘PAI score at baseline’.
When the adjustment also included ‘PAI score at baseline’, the odds ratios decreased to 1.22 and 1.07, respectively, and root filling quality parameters were no longer significant.
Discussion
The main finding of this study was that even when adjusted for additional predictive variables, the five scores in the PAI scale were still the most decisive predictive factors for periapical status and tooth extraction over a 5-year period, both in non-root filled and in root filled teeth.
The data were derived from a longitudinal observa- tional investigation of a general, adult Danish popula- tion and include information from questionnaires and radiographic examinations. This type of study may include information from all teeth, healthy, diseased, root filled and non-root filled. Another characteristic is that an observed treatment primarily has been per- formed by general practitioners and not specialists as often seen in controlled clinical studies from universi- ties. Information deriving from the general population is relevant to describe and analyse the disease pattern and risk factors relevant for the everyday dental clinic.
The outcome was predicted using information collected from a baseline examination 5 years earlier.
In the clinic, this corresponds to the fact that only information, which is available before, under or at completion of a root canal treatment, is relevant as predictor for the tooth’s future status. However, other studies include current clinical observations as predic- tive factors of present disease (Yu et al. 2014). The obvious difference in approach makes comparisons of results less relevant.
In the present study, several factors, both person- related and tooth-related, were investigated to see whether they could be used to predict future tooth status assessed on a 6-point scale ranging from no periapical disease to extracted, and it was concluded that person-related factors were of less predictive value than tooth-related factors. However, it was found that smoking was a significant predictive factor for a worse outcome, in particular in relation to non- root filled teeth. The association between AP and smoking has previously been investigated in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, and the find- ings have been conflicting. Five of six cross-sectional studies found a significant positive association between AP and smoking; one longitudinal study indicated an increased risk of receiving a root canal treatment, whereas two longitudinal studies, one of which included information from a shorter follow-up of the present population, found no significant effect on development of AP (Walter et al. 2012).
Table 3 Nonroot filled teeth: Mutually adjusted associations between predictive factors and outcome
Nonroot filled teeth
Variable OR 95% CI P-value
Baseline PAI (ref: PAI 1)
PAI 2 4.47 2.97 6.72 <0.0001
PAI 3 26.42 16.83 41.47 <0.0001
PAI 4 47.10 19.42 114.20 <0.0001
PAI 5 53.69 26.42 109.08 <0.0001
Primary caries (ref: no)
Yes 4.94 3.36 7.26 <0.0001
Secondary caries (ref: no)
Yes 2.10 1.35 3.26 0.001
Marginal bone level (ref:<3 mm)
3–4 mm 1.38 1.07 1.79 0.013
>4 mm 4.41 3.35 5.80 <0.0001
Restoration (ref: none)
Adequate 2.81 2.03 3.90 <0.0001
Inadequate 3.43 2.22 5.29 <0.0001
Jaw and tooth group (ref: mand. anterior)
mand. premolar 1.08 0.60 1.95 0.804
mand. molar 5.68 3.63 8.89 <0.0001
max. anterior 1.65 1.00 2.72 0.051
max. premolar 3.29 2.04 5.31 <0.0001
max. molar 3.38 2.13 5.37 <0.0001
Gender (ref: female)
Male 1.11 0.90 1.38 0.339
Age category (ref: 20–39)
40–49 years 1.30 0.95 1.77 0.100
50–59 years 1.27 0.89 1.82 0.182
60+ years 1.14 0.68 1.91 0.614
Smoking (ref: no)
Yes 1.26 0.99 1.59 0.055
Number of teeth (ref: 28 teeth)
≤23 teeth 2.43 1.66 3.55 0.000
24–25 teeth 1.24 0.91 1.69 0.175
26–27 teeth 1.18 0.90 1.56 0.234
Group (ref: group 1)
Group 2 1.43 1.04 1.96 0.027
Period (ref: 1997–2003)
2003–2008 1.35 1.09 1.68 0.006
Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals from ordered logistic regression of 19348 (96.7%) transitions.
When observing the predictive factors and their interrelations, the overall impression is that more variables had predictive value, and the effects of the predictive variables were larger in non-root filled teeth compared with root filled teeth. Indicators of presence of other oral diseases, caries and marginal periodonti- tis, were associated with a worse outcome in both root filled and non-root filled teeth. It is not surprising that the presence of a carious lesion in a tooth may influence the outcome, because carious lesions are one of the main gateways for bacteria infecting the pulp space.
Teeth with a reduced marginal bone level were associated with a worse outcome than teeth with no signs of marginal periodontal disease. This was previ- ously demonstrated in relation to extraction alone, in a subsample of the present population (Bahrami et al.
2008). It has been demonstrated that the relative fre- quency of root filled teeth with apical periodontitis is significantly higher in subjects with marginal bone loss (Jansson 2015), and other studies have demon- strated an association between AP and marginal bone loss (Ehnevid et al. 1993, Jansson et al. 1993).
Possible explanations of this relationship include 0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Reference tooth Tooth 2Tooth 1
Proportion
Nonroot filled teeth: predicted outcome at follow-up
PAI 1 PAI 3 PAI 5 PAI 2 PAI 4 Extracted
1 10 100 1000
1 10 100 1000
0 1000 2000 3000
Number of teeth
Odds ratio
(b) (a)
Figure 1 Non-root filled teeth. Panel a: Predicted probability distribution of outcome at follow-up as a function of the baseline prognostic index expressed as the odds ratio (OR) relative to a reference tooth. Tooth 1 is identical to a reference tooth except for age category (50–59 years), restoration (adequate) and tooth group (maxillary premolar); Tooth 2 is identical to Tooth 1 except for PAI (PAI 3) and restoration (inadequate). Panel b: Distribution of the prognostic index amongst 19348 teeth with baseline information about all predictive factors.
suggestions that bacteria or metabolic substances originating from the infected pulp tissue may spread through dentinal tubules to the marginal periodontal tissue, or that marginal inflammation may progress to the apical area.
The presence and quality of a restoration was also found to be associated with a worse outcome com- pared to no restoration and good-quality restora- tions. In a British study performed in general clinical practices, it was found that the risk of pulpal break- down was higher if the tooth had been restored with composite compared to amalgam (Whitworth et al.
2005). Other longitudinal studies have found that 3–10% of crowned teeth without root fillings devel- oped AP (Ericson et al. 1966, Karlsson & Hedegard 1984). However, in root filled teeth, it has been demonstrated that crown therapy did not affect the periapical status (Eckerbom et al. 1991). Further- more, the most frequent reason for tooth extraction in a population from Taiwan was extensive decay or an unrestorable tooth (Chen et al. 2007) and teeth with postoperative cast restorations had higher sur- vival rates than teeth without (Ng et al. 2010, 2011b). Another large case series reported that the quality of a restoration did not influence the out- come of root canal treatment (Ricucci et al. 2011).
Even though previous studies have somewhat con- flicting findings regarding the association between restoration type and quality on tooth prognosis, an overview of current evidence suggests that high- quality coronal restorations minimize the risk of pul- pal infection, AP and tooth loss.
Molars and maxillary premolars were found to have a risk of a worse outcome compared to anterior teeth and mandibular premolars. In fact, this variable was the only parameter where the odds ratios were higher for root filled teeth than for non-root filled teeth. The majority of molars and maxillary premolars have more than one root canal. When reporting on tooth level, it is obvious that multirooted teeth have a higher risk of a worse periapical status compared to teeth with only one root canal, simply because they have more roots at risk of developing disease. Simi- larly, when focusing on root filled teeth, healing of AP may be seen in relation to one root at the same time as AP persists in another. Moreover, a meta-ana- lysis has revealed that molar teeth had a higher risk of being extracted after root canal treatment than other teeth (Ng et al. 2010), and a large case series based on root filled teeth demonstrated that the prog- nosis for mandibular molars was impaired (Ricucci et al. 2011) and that amongst maxillary premolars and mandibular molars, there was a higher frequency of extractions (Ng et al. 2011b).
Inadequate root filling quality was moreover asso- ciated with a worse outcome than an adequate root filling, however, when adjusted for PAI score at baseline the association disappeared. This may indi- cate that the association between root filling quality and the periapical status and extraction is mediated by baseline PAI score. Having an inadequate root filling increases the probability of also having a poor periapical status at baseline, and because the Table 4 Root filled teeth: Mutually adjusted associations
between predictive factors and outcome
Root filled teeth
Variable OR 95% CI P-value
Baseline PAI (ref: PAI 1)
PAI 2 2.30 1.45 3.64 <0.0001
PAI 3 5.10 3.77 6.90 <0.0001
PAI 4 13.75 8.44 22.40 <0.0001
PAI 5 31.74 17.49 57.61 <0.0001
Primary caries (ref: no)
Yes 2.09 1.37 3.19 0.001
Secondary caries (ref: no)
Yes 0.68 0.42 1.08 0.099
Marginal bone level (ref:<3 mm)
3–4 mm 1.00 0.72 1.39 0.990
>4 mm 1.56 1.07 2.28 0.021
Restoration (ref: none)
Adequate 0.98 0.38 2.57 0.975
Inadequate 1.53 0.56 4.21 0.406
Jaw and tooth group (ref: mand. anterior)
mand. premolar 2.90 0.58 14.40 0.192
mand. molar 13.22 3.06 56.99 0.001
max. anterior 5.10 1.12 23.23 0.035
max. premolar 7.40 1.66 33.07 0.009
max. molar 9.79 2.14 44.87 0.003
Gender (ref: female)
Male 1.38 1.05 1.82 0.020
Age category (ref: 20–39)
40–49 years 1.05 0.70 1.58 0.823
50–59 years 1.22 0.81 1.84 0.335
60+ years 1.18 0.69 2.02 0.551
Smoking (ref: no)
Yes 1.11 0.81 1.52 0.532
Number of teeth (ref: 28 teeth)
≤23 teeth 1.06 0.69 1.62 0.794
24–25 teeth 1.13 0.75 1.71 0.546
26–27 teeth 1.03 0.74 1.41 0.876
Group (ref: group 1)
Group 2 1.10 0.76 1.59 0.618
Period (ref: 1997–2003)
2003–2008 1.21 0.89 1.65 0.214
Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals from ordered logistic regression of 1038 (96.4%) transitions.
baseline PAI score is such a strong predictor, this will inevitably inflict on the probability of a poor outcome. In controlled clinical studies, inadequate
technical quality of the root filling was associated with lower treatment success rates (Kirkevang &
H€orsted-Bindslev 2002).
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Reference tooth Tooth 2
Root filled teeth: predicted outcome at follow-up
Proportion
PAI 1 PAI 3 PAI 5 PAI 2 PAI 4 Extracted
Tooth 1
1 10 100 1000
1 10 100 1000
0 50 100 150 200
Number of teeth
Odds ratio
(b) (a)
Figure 2 Root filled teeth. Panel a: Predicted probability distribution of outcome at follow-up as a function of the baseline prognostic index expressed as the odds ratio (OR) relative to a reference tooth. Tooth 1 is identical to a reference tooth except for age category (50–59 years), restoration (adequate) and tooth group (maxillary premolar); Tooth 2 is identical to Tooth 1 except for PAI (PAI 3) and restoration (inadequate). Panel b: Distribution of the prognostic index amongst 1038 teeth with baseline information about all predictive factors.
Table 5 Predicted probability distribution of the outcome for a reference tooth, which has the following baseline characteris- tics: PAI 1, group 1, period 1, female, no smoking, age 20–39 years, 28 teeth, no primary or secondary caries, no restoration, marginal bone level<3 mm, lower incisor
Tooth type PAI 1 PAI 2 PAI 3 PAI 4 PAI 5 Extracted
Nonroot filled teeth 99.84% 0.05% 0.07% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02%
Root filled teeth 97.34% 0.52% 1.75% 0.24% 0.06% 0.09%
The results of the present study, in which the full- scale periapical index was used as outcome, were similar to previous results based on a dichotomized outcome, healthy/diseased or tooth present/absent.
However, with the additional information derived from the increased level of detail in the reporting of the outcome, the sensitivity improves and therefore smaller sample sizes may be required. This could be of relevance in the design of future clinical studies.
Conclusion
The baseline PAI score was the strongest predictive factor for periapical status including extraction, even when adjusted for additional predictive factors. A high baseline PAI score increased the risk for an impaired outcome. The large difference in risk estimates for non-root filled compared to root filled teeth docu- ments the importance of separate analyses/studies for identification and quantification of risk factors associ- ated with periapical disease and tooth extraction.
Acknowledgement
The study received funding from The Dental Founda- tion, a foundation established by the National Health Insurance in Denmark and the Danish Dental Association to provide funds for joint efforts within the dental field.
Conflict of interest
The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.
References
Bahrami G, Vaeth M, Kirkevang LL, Wenzel A, Isidor F (2008) Risk factors for tooth loss in an adult population: a radiographic study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 35, 1059–65.
Chen S-C, Chueh L-H, Hsiao CK, Tsai M-Y, Ho S-C, Chiang C-P (2007) An epidemiologic study of tooth retention after nonsurgical endodontic treatment in a large population in Taiwan. Journal of Endodontics33, 226–9.
Chugal NM, Clive JM, Spangberg LS (2001) A prognostic model for assessment of the outcome of endodontic treat- ment: Effect of biologic and diagnostic variables. Oral Sur- gery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics91, 342–52.
Eckerbom M, Magnusson T, Andersson J-E (1991) Preva- lence of apical periodontitis, crowned teeth and teeth with
posts in a Swedish population. Endodontics & Dental Trau- matology7, 214–20.
Ehnevid H, Jansson LE, Lindskog SF, Bloml€of LB (1993) Peri- odontal healing in relation to radiographic attachment and endodontic infection. Journal of Periodontology 64, 1199–204.
Ericson S, Hedegard B, Wennstr€om A (1966) Roentgeno- graphic study of vital abutment teeth. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5, 981–7.
Jansson L (2015) Relationship between apical periodontitis and marginal bone loss at individual level from a general population. International Dental Journal65, 71–6.
Jansson L, Ehnevid H, Lindskog S, Bloml€of L (1993) Rela- tionship between periapical and periodontal status. A clini- cal retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 20, 117–23.
Karlsson S, Hedegard B (1984) Efterunders€okning av patien- ter med st€orre brokonstruktioner. Del II. Tandl€akartidningen 24, 1425–34.
Kirkevang L-L, H€orsted-Bindslev P (2002) Technical aspects of treatment in relation to treatment outcome. Endodontic Topics1, 64–77.
Kirkevang L-L, H€orsted-Bindslev P, Ørstavik D, Wenzel A (2001) Frequency and distribution of endodontically trea- ted teeth and apical periodontitis in an urban Danish pop- ulation. International Endodontic Journal34, 198–205.
Kirkevang L-L, Væth M, H€orsted-Bindslev P, Wenzel A (2005) Longitudinal study of apical periodontitis and endodontic status in a Danish population. International Endodontic Journal39, 100–7.
Kirkevang L-L, Væth M, H€orsted-Bindslev P, Bahrami G, Wenzel A (2007) Risk factors for developing apical peri- odontitis in a general population. International Endodontic Journal40, 290–9.
Kirkevang L-L, Væth M, Wenzel A (2012) 10-year follow-up observations of periapical and endodontic status in a Danish population. International Endodontic Journal 45, 829–39.
Kirkevang L-L, Ørstavik D, Wenzel A, Væth M (2015) Prog- nostic value of the full-scale Periapical Index. International Endodontic Journal48, 1051–8.
Ludlow JB, Abreu M Jr, Mol A (2001) Performance of a new F-speed film for caries detection. Dento Maxillo Facial Radi- ology30, 110–3.
Marending M, Peters OA, Zehnder M (2005) Factors affect- ing the outcome of orthograde root canal therapy in a general dentistry hospital practice. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics 99, 119–24.
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2010) Tooth survival follow- ing non-surgical root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. International Endodontic Journal43, 171–
89.
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2011a) A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal
treatment: part 1: periapical health. International Endodon- tic Journal44, 583–609.
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K (2011b) A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: part 2: tooth survival. International Endodontic Journal44, 610–25.
Ørstavik D (1996) Time–course and risk analyses of the development and healing of chronic apical periodontitis in man. International Endodontic Journal29, 150–5.
Ørstavik D, Kerekes K, Eriksen HM (1986) The periapical index: a scoring system for radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Endodontics & Dental Traumatology2, 20–34.
Ricucci D, Russo J, Rutberg M, Burleson JA, Spangberg LS (2011) A prospective cohort study of endodontic treat- ments of 1,369 root canals: results after 5 years. Oral Sur- gery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics112, 825–42.
Strindberg LZ (1956) The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors. An analytic study based on radiographic and clinical follow-up examinations (Thesis). Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 14 (Suppl 21), 1–96.
Walter C, Rodriguez FR, Taner B, Hecker H, Weiger R (2012) Association of tobacco use and periapical pathosis – a systematic review. International Endodontic Journal 45, 1065–73.
Whitworth JM, Myers PM, Smith J, Walls AWG, McCabe JF (2005) Endodontic complications after plastic restorations in general practice. International Endodontic Journal 38, 409–16.
Yu VS, Khin LW, Hsu CS, Yee R, Messer HH (2014) Risk score algorithm for treatment of persistent apical periodon- titis. Journal of Dental Research93, 1076–82.
