title: Impact of three radiographic methods in the outcome of nonsurgical endodontic treatment: a five-year follow-up.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The periapical film radiograph (PFR) and digital periapical radiograph (DPR) techniques have some limitations in the visualization of small periapical lesions (PLs) when compared with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). However, the evidence supporting their effectiveness is very limited. This retrospective longitudinal cohort study evaluated the outcome of endodontic treatments measured/monitored by PFR, DPR, and CBCT during a 5-year follow-up and also determined the prognostic factors that influenced treatment success.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 132 teeth (208 roots) with vital pulps received endodontic treatment. The periapical indexes with scores ≥2 for PFR and DPR and ≥1 for CBCT indicated the presence of PLs. Prognostic factors were determined by bivariate and multivariate analyses. Statistical significance was defined at a P level <.05.
  
  
  RESULTS
  CBCT detected a higher number of PLs (18.7%, n = 39 roots), followed by DPR (7.7%, n = 16 roots) and PFR (5.7%, n = 12 roots). Likewise, CBCT was more sensitive than PFR and DPR in detecting deficiencies in extension and density of the root canal filling (P ≤ .001). Of the 17 prognostic factors evaluated, 4 were significantly associated with poor outcome to the treatment (P < .05): root canal curvature, disinfection of gutta-percha, presence of missed canals, and the quality of definitive coronal restoration.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The success outcome of endodontic treatment after 5 years in teeth with vital pulps varied with each radiographic method: 94.3%/PFR, 92.3%/DPR, and 81.3%/CBCT.
authors: Department of Endodontics and Group of Basic and Clinical Sciences on Dentistry (CBO), CES University, Medellín, Colombia. rfernandez@ces.edu.co
authors: Rafael
authors: R
authors: Fernández
authors: Diego
authors: D
authors: Cadavid
authors: Sandra M
authors: SM
authors: Zapata
authors: Luis G
authors: LG
authors: Alvarez
authors: Felipe A
authors: FA
authors: Restrepo
mesh_terms: D063405:Anatomic Variation; D002133:Calcium Sulfate / Q000737:chemistry; D015331:Cohort Studies; D054893:Cone-Beam Computed Tomography / Q000379:methods*; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000592:standards; D003794:Dental Restoration, Temporary / Q000592:standards; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008297:Male; D008768:Methylmethacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D008853:Microscopy / Q000295:instrumentation; D008875:Middle Aged; D010483:Periapical Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000628:therapy; D016300:Radiography, Bitewing / Q000379:methods*; D019252:Radiography, Dental, Digital / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials / Q000627:therapeutic use; D012388:Root Canal Irrigants / Q000627:therapeutic use; D012389:Root Canal Obturation / Q000379:methods; D018915:Root Canal Preparation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D012390:Root Canal Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D016733:Rubber Dams; D012973:Sodium Hypochlorite / Q000627:therapeutic use; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement / Q000737:chemistry; D019287:Zinc Sulfate / Q000737:chemistry
chemical_list: C504942:Coltosol F; D008768:Methylmethacrylates; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; D012388:Root Canal Irrigants; D015035:Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement; C031667:IRM cement; D019287:Zinc Sulfate; D012973:Sodium Hypochlorite; D002133:Calcium Sulfate
keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography; outcome of nonsurgical endodontic treatment; periapical radiography; retrospective study