Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 96
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 107-113

Endodontic therapy and restorative rehabilitation versus extraction and implant replacement


1 Department of Endodontics, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Dental Clinics, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Endodontic Division, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Date of Web Publication20-Nov-2013

Correspondence Address:
Abdelhamied Y Saad
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Endodontic Division, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P.O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11454
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1658-5984.121502

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

This investigation presents a chart that can assist clinicians, in general and endodontists, in particular, in making the right decision when they are deciding, which rout to take; endodontic treatment to save the natural tooth or extraction and osseointegrated implant. Systematic review of the literature was used to investigate success rates of both endodontic therapy and extraction of the tooth and placement of an implant, with the intent of determining the superior treatment modality. The results demonstrated that both treatment modalities produced nearly similar success rates, with implants generally showing slightly higher success rates. It was concluded that endodontic treatment should first be given to save compromised natural tooth before pursuing extraction and implant. A protocol to assist clinicians in making the right decision to endodontically save or extract the offending tooth and replacement of implant is presented.

Keywords: Endodontics, implant, outcome


How to cite this article:
Al Shareef AA, Saad AY. Endodontic therapy and restorative rehabilitation versus extraction and implant replacement. Saudi Endod J 2013;3:107-13

How to cite this URL:
Al Shareef AA, Saad AY. Endodontic therapy and restorative rehabilitation versus extraction and implant replacement. Saudi Endod J [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 Sep 15];3:107-13. Available from: http://www.saudiendodj.com/text.asp?2013/3/3/107/121502


  Introduction Top


Endodontic treatment procedures have played a very important role in the retention and restoration to function of teeth affected by pulpal diseases or periapical pathosis. This can be achieved by the numerous treatment strategies in both non-surgical and surgical endodontics. These advances in modern endodontic practice have allowed the clinicians to provide greater range of treatment options to save teeth. On the other hand, the extraction of the teeth has generally been considered undesirable and as a treatment of last resort due to the limitation of alternative prosthodontic replacement such as bridges and removable prosthesis. Recently, implant replacement appear to be a new treatment modality to restore the non-restorable natural teeth which need extraction. This has led to consider that single tooth implant is a part of endodontic treatment programs.

Osseointegrated implants are a very technique-sensitive procedure. Currently, it is important to emphasize that this surgical technique is within the scope of endodontics. Therefore, endodontist who plan to incorporate this surgical technique into their practice should participate in advanced training programs in order to gain knowledge in (1) diagnosis, (2) treatment planning and (3) placement osseointegrated implants prior to implementing their use in clinical practice. This may be due to that the implant - supported restorations have become the most popular therapeutic option for professionals and patients for the treatment of total and partial edentulism.

This article presents a protocol or map road that can assist clinicians, in general, endodontists, in particular, in making the right decision when they are deciding which route to take; endodontic treatment to save the tooth or extraction and osseointegrated implant.


  Review of the Literature Top


Endodontic treatment

Endodontic treatment has a long history in management of teeth with pulp diseases and/or periapical pathosis. Endodontic therapy is presently widely prescribed by both endodontists and general dentists. The role of bacteria and bacterial infection in pulpal and periradicular diseases has been well-established. Recent years have also seen a new level of understanding of the physiologic as well as the pathologic process that are responsible for pulpal and periradicular diseases. Furthermore, dental field has shown some major technological and biological advances, resulting in development of innovative new treatment modalities in both non-surgical and surgical endodontics. [1]

One of the main objectives in the dental field is prevention of oral diseases and the preservation of the natural detention, frequently achieved by root canal therapy. The scope of endodontics include non-surgical treatment of teeth with diseased pulp and/or periapical pathosis, selective surgical removal of pathological tissues resulting from pulpal pathosis with or without using the operating microscope, management of traumatic injuries, bleaching of discolored teeth, retreatment of the teeth previously treated endodontically and treatment procedures related to coronal restorations by means of posts and/or cores involving the root canal space. In general, aim of endodontic therapy has been defined in terms of the prevention and/or elimination of apical periodontitis. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]

Outcomes of endodontic treatment

Several investigations have reported that multiple factors are involved in determining endodontic outcomes. They revealed that the risk of failure is higher when certain conditions are present. These include chronic periradicular infection or radiolucency, previous unsuccessful endodontic treatment, presence of multiple roots and co-existing periodontal disease. They added that re-treatment of teeth that have been previously treated endodontically seems to be often associated with poor outcomes. [11],[13],[14],[15] Others have stated that root canal therapy that is performed for the first time in a particular tooth has higher long-term tooth survival rate. [16],[17],[18] According to some investigators, the average survival rate of the teeth endodontically treated by the general dentist is ~89.7% after 5 years. Moreover, if the treatment is performed by a specialist, the success rate is increases to 98.1%. [19] Another investigator has revealed that the 10 years survival rate of teeth treated by root canal therapy performed by residents was 85.1%. [20] If a root canal-treated tooth presents persistent symptoms, retreatment of the affected tooth is a suitable option. However, the survival rate of retreated teeth is not as high compared with initial treatment, [16] especially when extensive periradicular lesions are present. [21] Friedman [22] comprehensively reviewed endodontic treatment outcomes from the second half of the 20 th century. With respect to initial endodontic treatment, he revealed that teeth without apical periodontitis were generally more successful than teeth with apical periodontitis. With respect to retreatment, he was generally more successful than initial treatment; and that in teeth with apical periodontitis, initial treatment was generally more successful than retreatment. With respect to surgery, he stated that surgery combined with root canal re-treatment was generally more successful (weighted average 80%) than surgery alone (weighted average 59%) on teeth with previously failed root canal treatment; and that optical surgery including retrograde filling was generally more successful than apicoectomy alone. [22] Stringberg's study [23] of up to 10 years reported a 93% success rate for endodontic therapy in teeth having vital pulps or necrotic pulp without apical periodontitis; an 88% success rate in teeth presenting with apical periodontitis; and an 84% success rate following retreatment in teeth presenting with apical periodontitis. Recent study reported an 88% success rate in teeth without apical periodontitis; a 63% success rate in teeth with diseased periapices and a 79% success rate in re-treatment cases. [24] In addition, a more recent investigation revealed success rate of 83% for vital pulp and 79% for non-vital ones. [25]

Implant therapy

Brånemark et al. [26],[27] and Schroeder et al. [28],[29] were the pioneer in osseointegrated implant. Implant dentistry has subsequently seen some major advances in used instrument and techniques, particularly in the past three decades. The shift toward improved esthetic and simplified use has resulted in the application of oral implants in the replacement of single teeth. According John et al. [12] who stated that the original protocol of delayed attachment of the overlying prosthesis has been replaced more or less immediate loading protocols, from the same day to 6 weeks following fixtures placement. They added that extraction and immediate placement of principles have been advocated to enable preservation of bone and soft-tissue contours with less post-operative complications. [12] However, Bader [30] reported that tooth sustention by reconstructive surgery and root canal therapy if indicated, may be a reasonable choice as opposed to extraction and implant therapy. He added that the predictability of implant fixtures as a long-term solution for edentulous areas has improved to the point where they have become the standard of care in many situations, in lieu of fixed prostheses. Moreover, the risk assessment for prognostic evaluation plays an important role in the decision making process. The clinical and systemic factors affecting the longevity of a tooth need be considered as well as location, bone quality and the amount and the condition of the patient's other teeth. [30] In addition, some investigators have stated that even with exiting new treatment options such as implant dentistry and the benefits offers to patients and practitioners, all due consideration should first be given to treatments aimed at preserving and storing compromised teeth before pursuing extraction and replacement. [31]

In certain situations implants may be considered a better therapeutic alternative than performing more extensive conservative procedures in an attempt to save or maintain a compromised tooth. Concomitantly, it is important to keep in mind that maintenance of the natural dentition in high function and acceptable esthetics remain the primary goal of any periodontal therapy. Prosthetic restorations cannot compete with a natural tooth regard to the physical, biomechanical and sensorial properties as well as proprioception and the adaptation under mechanical forces mediated by the periodontal ligament. [14],[31 ],[32],[33],[ 34] Avila et al. [14] in their extensive review presented with a color-coded system chart that can assist clinicians in making the right decision when they are deciding, which rout to take in order to save or extract a compromised tooth. They added that there is a large number of factors should be considered. These factors include initial assessment, periodontal disease severity, furcation involvement, etiologic and treatment factors, restorative factors and other determinants such as smoking habits, uncontrolled systemic condition and the clinician's experience.

First: Initial assessment (patient expectation and desire, treatment expectations, esthetics, finances, patient compliance and patient hygiene performance).

Second: Periodontal disease severity (probing depth, tooth mobility, recurrent periodontal abscess, amount of bone loss and bone defect morphology-vertical or horizontal).

Third: Furcation involvement (severity of furcation defects, interproximal bone level related to furcation entrance, root anomalies as enamel pearls and root groves, which hind plague and root resection to eliminate the cause and to provide a better environment).

Fourth: Etiologic and treatment factors (presence calculus, surgery that compromises bone dimension, recurrent periodontal disease, root proximity which may contribute in progression of periodontal disease and root canal therapy where the survival rate of endodontically retreated teeth is not as high compared to initial treatment).

Fifth: Restorative factors (carries, fractured and faulty restorations, crown/root ratio, determination of the need for a post/core and crown).

Sixth: Other determinants (smoking habits, uncontrolled systemic conditions, the use bisphosphonates that produce a reduction of bone turnover and inhibition of mineralization and inhibition of bone resorption and the clinician's experience.

Furthermore, Avila et al. were not included genetic determinants and age in their decision-making chart. [14] In addition, these factors were support previous factors stated by same authors who revealed that these factors should be considered in choosing between the implant and endodontic therapies. They concentrated on patient related issues (systemic and oral health as well as comfort and treatment perceptions), tooth and periodontium-related factors (pulpal and periodontal conditions, color characteristics of the teeth, quantity and quality of bone and soft-tissue anatomy) and treatment-related factors (the potential for procedural complications, required adjunctive procedures and treatment outcomes), radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormone replacement therapy, Parkinson disease, multiple myloma and a human immunodeficiency virus - positive status. [35],[36],[37],[38]

In osseointegrated implants, sufficient bone with good quality should be available for placement of an implant. This bone and surrounding teeth are free from disease. It is also important to locate vital anatomic structure that can interfere with implant placement such as the inferior alveolar canal, mental foramen, maxillary sinus and approximating roots. Radiographic images are necessary to asses and identify bone quality and volume. Moreover, the faciolingual dimensions of residual bone should be measured using bone sounding and ridge mapping. With bone sounding, a periodontal probe and special bone calipers have been used for this purpose. Using a radiograph template, the selected radiograph is made and analysis. The cone beam tomogram and computed tomography scan are now used favorably compared with the accuracy of panoramic radiograph. [39],[40],[41] Extraction and immediate placement of single osseointegrated implants are now very predictable and have numerous advantages over delayed placement techniques. These advantages including maintenance of the existing gingival embrasure form and marginal contour, preservation of existing bone, reduced surgical procedure and shortened treatment time. [41],[42],[43],[44],[45]

Implant outcomes

Several investigators have demonstrated that when implant placed in an ideal position, with adequate prosthesis design and proper maintenance, it can achieve a success rate of 97-99%, with an outstanding long-term functional performance. [46],[47] Eckert et al. have reported a survival rate of 96% in 5 years survival rate. [48] Other investigations have reported 5 years implant survival rate of 95% and above. [49],[50] Haas et al. 10 years survival estimates of approximately 90%. [51] Interestingly, Torabinejad et al. have stated that success rates for implant-supported crown were higher than for root canal therapy were similar and superior to those of fixed partial denture. [52] Moreover, numerous prospective studies have performed and limited to single-tooth ITI implant-supported crowns. Brägger et al. have reported 90% success rate, [53] Levine et al. showed 95% survival rate, [54] Ferrigno et al. have demonstrated 91%, [55] Astrand et al. have stated 97%, [56] Lambrecht et al. demonstrated 99%, [57] while Fugazzotto et al. revealed 97%, [58] and Buser et al. reported 97%. [59] Furthermore, the American Dental Association's Council on Scientific Affairs reported high implant survival rate with regard to the single tooth implant. The council revealed survival rates ranging from 94.4% to 99%. [60]

In general, endodontic therapy with the use of recent instruments, equipment and dental devices as well as new techniques, enabling practitioners and endodontists to perform the endodontic therapy with greater precision and efficiency, fewer errors and better success rates than before. However, when this treatment modality is not possible, extraction and osseointegrated implants can be performed. The decision between retention of endodontically involved teeth versus extraction and implant replacement is a clinical decision that requires careful evaluation of all factors influencing the outcome of the proposed treatment. [61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66] [Figure 1] demonstrating decision making a chart for endodontic therapy or extraction and implant.
Figure 1: Decision making chart for endodontic treatment or extraction and implant

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The successful evolution of endosseous dental implants as a predictable replacement for missing teeth has had a positive impact on patient care. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] More challenging is the decision concerning whether or not to pursue endodontics for a tooth with a questionable prognosis or extract and use a single-tooth implant as a replacement. [61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66] At this time, there are no randomized controlled outcomes studies comparing endodontic therapy with single-tooth implants. A synthesis of available evidence indicates that both primary root canal treatment and single tooth implants are highly predictable procedures when treatment is appropriately planned and implemented as stated by many previous works. [16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60]

It was found that implants resist dental caries, periodontal diseases and restore structural deficiencies with high success rates. These findings were similar and confirmed by several previous investigators. [12],[14],[30],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60] On the other hand, natural teeth with intact coronal structure and reasonable root length with good surrounding alveolar bone are considered best candidates for traditional endodontic therapy, especially in instances in which the esthetic outcome is important to the patient. These data were parallel to and supported by several studies. [19],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[25] However, when a tooth is considered to be in a hopeless condition, extraction and immediate or delayed placement of implant is indication. [61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66] Therefore, the decision to either maintain an endodontically involved tooth or do extraction and place an implant can be very complex issue and we feel that no generic answer to this clinical issue and every patient must be examined and evaluated on an individual basis to obtain long-term predictability of treatment outcome. Furthermore, according to some investigators who concluded that four conditions were found to improve the outcome of primary root canal therapy? These conditions include; (1) pre-treatment absence of a periapical radiolucency, (2) root filling with no voids, (3) root filling extending to 2 mm within the radiographic apex and (4) satisfactory coronal restoration. [66]

Finally, most current investigations indicated no significant difference in the long-term prognosis between restored endodontically treated teeth and single-tooth implants. We feel that every effort should perform to keep natural tooth as soon as the prosthetic restorability is good, the quality of bone is adequate besides the esthetic concerns and costs and patient preference. Therefore, endodontic therapy with adequate restoration represents a practical and economical way to preserve function in a vast majority of cases and that dental implants serve as a good alternative in selected in dications in which prognosis is poor. Moreover, some endodontic advanced education programs are now including implant training in their curriculum. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that the implant surgery is now within the scope of endodontics.

 
  References Top

1.Ingle JI, Slavkin HS. Modern endodontic therapy: Past, present and future. In: Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner JC, editors. Ingles Endodontics. 6 th ed. Lewiston, NY: BC Decker Inc.; 2008. p. 1-35.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Orstavik D, Pitt Ford TR. Apical periodontitis; microbial infection and host responses. In: Pitt Ford TR, Orstavik D, editors. Essential Endodontology: Prevention and Treatment of Apical Periodontitis. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Trope M. The vital tooth-Its importance in the study and practice of endodontics. Endod Top 2003;5:1.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Swift EJ, Trope M, Ritter AV. Vital pulp therapy for the mature tooth - Can it work? Endod Top 2003;5:49-56.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Nakashima M, Akamine A. The application of tissue engineering to regeneration of pulp and dentin in endodontics. J Endod 2005;31:711-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Witherspoon DE, Small JC, Harris GZ. Mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomies: A case series outcomes assessment. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:610-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Khayat BG. The use of magnification in endodontic therapy: The operating microscope. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:137-44.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Rubinstein R. Magnification and illumination in apical surgery. Endod Top 2005;11:56-77.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod 2004;30:827-45.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.Kim S, Kratchman S. Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice: A review. J Endod 2006;32:601-23.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Thomas MV, Beagle JR. Evidence-based decision-making: Implants versus natural teeth. Dent Clin North Am 2006; 50:451-61,viii.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.John V, Chen S, Parashos P. Implant or the natural tooth - A contemporary treatment planning dilemma? Aust Dent J 2007;52:S138-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Chugal NM, Clive JM, Spångberg LS. Endodontic infection: Some biologic and treatment factors associated with outcome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:81-90.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Avila G, Galindo-Moreno P, Soehren S, Misch CE, Morelli T, Wang HL. A novel decision-making process for tooth retention or extraction. J Periodontol 2009;80:476-91.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.Ratner BD. Replacing and renewing: Synthetic materials, biomimetics, and tissue engineering in implant dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001;65:1340-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Allen RK, Newton CW, Brown CE Jr. A statistical analysis of surgical and nonsurgical endodontic retreatment cases. J Endod 1989;15:261-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Friedman S. Prognosis of initial endodontic therapy. Endod Top 2002;2:59-88.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Imura N, Pinheiro ET, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC, Souza-Filho FJ. The outcome of endodontic treatment: A retrospective study of 2000 cases performed by a specialist. J Endod 2007;33:1278-82.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.Alley BS, Kitchens GG, Alley LW, Eleazer PD. A comparison of survival of teeth following endodontic treatment performed by general dentists or by specialists. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:115-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Dammaschke T, Steven D, Kaup M, Ott KH. Long-term survival of root-canal-treated teeth: A retrospective study over 10 years. J Endod 2003;29:638-43.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, Aouar M, D'Hoore W. Retreatment or radiographic monitoring in endodontics. Int Endod J 1994;27:75-81.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Friedman S. Treatment outcome and prognosis of endodontic therapy. In: Orstavik D, Pitt Ford TR, editors. Essential Endodontology. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998. p. 367-401.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Stringberg LZ. The dependence of the results of pulp therapy on certain factors. An analytic study based on radiographic and clinical follow-up examination. Acta Odontal Scand 1956;14 Suppl 21:1-175.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Chugal NM, Clive JM, Spångberg LS. A prognostic model for assessment of the outcome of endodontic treatment: Effect of biologic and diagnostic variables. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:342-52.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Kojima K, Inamoto K, Nagamatsu K, Hara A, Nakata K, Morita I, et al. Success rate of endodontic treatment of teeth with vital and nonvital pulps. A meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:95-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;3:81-100.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Schroeder A, Pohler O, Sutter F. Tissue reaction to an implant of a titanium hollow cylinder with a titanium surface spray layer. SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd 1976;86:713-27.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]    
29.Schroeder A, van der Zypen E, Stich H, Sutter F. The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 1981;9:15-25.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.Bader HI. Treatment planning for implants versus root canal therapy: A contemporary dilemma. Implant Dent 2002;11:217-23.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]    
31.Tang CS, Naylor AE. Single-unit implants versus conventional treatments for compromised teeth: A brief review of the evidence. J Dent Educ 2005;69:414-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]    
32.Jacobs R, Bou Serhal C, van Steenberghe D. The stereognostic ability of natural dentitions versus implant-supported fixed prostheses or overdentures. Clin Oral Investig 1997;1:89-94.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]    
33.Dorow C, Krstin N, Sander FG. Experiments to determine the material properties of the periodontal ligament. J Orofac Orthop 2002;63:94-104.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]    
34.Melsen B. Tissue reaction to orthodontic tooth movement - A new paradigm. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:671-81.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]    
35.Torabinejad M, Goodacre CJ. Endodontic or dental implant therapy: The factors affecting treatment planning. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:973-7.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]    
36.Becker W. Immediate implant placement: Treatment planning and surgical steps for successful outcomes. Br Dent J 2006;201:199-205.  Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]    
37.Serota KS. A tale of two specialties: The endodontic/implant algorithm. Roots 2007;2:22-5.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:121-32.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.Wilson DJ. Ridge mapping for determination of alveolar ridge width. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:41-3.  Back to cited text no. 39
[PUBMED]    
40.Kassebaum DK, Nummikoski PV, Triplett RG, Langlais RP. Cross-sectional radiography for implant site assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;70:674-8.  Back to cited text no. 40
[PUBMED]    
41.Lozada JL, Kleinman A. Osseointegrated dental implant. In: Ingl JI, Backland LK, Baumgartener JC, editors. Ingle Endodontics. 6 th ed. Lewiston, NY: BC Decker Inc.; 2008. p. 1295-309.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Paolantonio M, Dolci M, Scarano A, d'Archivio D, di Placido G, Tumini V, et al. Immediate implantation in fresh extraction sockets. A controlled clinical and histological study in man. J Periodontol 2001;72:1560-71.  Back to cited text no. 42
[PUBMED]    
43.Schwartz-Arad D, Chaushu G. Placement of implants into fresh extraction sites: 4 to 7 years retrospective evaluation of 95 immediate implants. J Periodontol 1997;68:1110-6.  Back to cited text no. 43
[PUBMED]    
44.Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada J. Immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: 1-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:31-9.  Back to cited text no. 44
[PUBMED]    
45.Lazzara RJ. Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: Surgical and restorative advantages. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1989;9:332-43.  Back to cited text no. 45
[PUBMED]    
46.Ekelund JA, Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. Implant treatment in the edentulous mandible: A prospective study on Brånemark system implants over more than 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:602-8.  Back to cited text no. 46
[PUBMED]    
47.Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clinical results and marginal bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:329-36.  Back to cited text no. 47
[PUBMED]    
48.Eckert SE, Choi YG, Sánchez AR, Koka S. Comparison of dental implant systems: Quality of clinical evidence and prediction of 5-year survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:406-15.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.Scheller H, Urgell JP, Kultje C, Klineberg I, Goldberg PV, Stevenson-Moore P, et al. A 5-year multicenter study on implant-supported single crown restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:212-8.  Back to cited text no. 49
[PUBMED]    
50.Creugers NH, Kreulen CM, Snoek PA, deKanter RJ. A systematic review of single-tooth restorations supported by implants. J Dent 2000;28:209-17.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.Haas R, Polak C, Fürhauser R, Mailath-Pokorny G, Dörtbudak O, Watzek G. A long-term follow-up of 76 Bränemark single-tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:38-43.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.Torabinejad M, Anderson P, Bader J, Brown LJ, Chen LH, Goodacre CJ, et al. Outcomes of root canal treatment and restoration, implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial dentures, and extraction without replacement: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:285-311.  Back to cited text no. 52
[PUBMED]    
53.Brägger U, Karoussis I, Persson R, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Lang N. Technical and biological complications/failures with single crowns and fixed partial dentures on implants: A 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:326-34.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.Levine RA, Clem DS 3 rd , Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Solnit G. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: Results of loading for 2 or more years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:516-20.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.Ferrigno N, Laureti M, Fanali S. Dental implants placement in conjunction with osteotome sinus floor elevation: A 12-year life-table analysis from a prospective study on 588 ITI implants.Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:194-205.  Back to cited text no. 55
[PUBMED]    
56.Astrand P, Engquist B, Anzén B, Bergendal T, Hallman M, Karlsson U, et al. A three-year follow-up report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implants and Brånemark system implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004;6:130-41.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.Lambrecht JT, Filippi A, Künzel AR, Schiel HJ. Long-term evaluation of submerged and nonsubmerged ITI solid-screw titanium implants: A 10-year life table analysis of 468 implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:826-34.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.Fugazzotto PA, Beagle JR, Ganeles J, Jaffin R, Vlassis J, Kumar A. Success and failure rates of 9 mm or shorter implants in the replacement of missing maxillary molars when restored with individual crowns: Preliminary results 0 to 84 months in function. A retrospective study. J Periodontol 2004;75:327-32.  Back to cited text no. 58
[PUBMED]    
59.Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-72.  Back to cited text no. 59
[PUBMED]    
60.ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. Dental endosseous implants: An update. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:92-7.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.Iacono VJ, Committee on Research, Science and Therapy, the American Academy of Periodontology. Dental implants in periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2000;71:1934-42.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.Laney WR, Jemt T, Harris D, Henry PJ, Krogh PH, Polizzi G, et al. Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: Progress report from a multicenter prospective study after 3 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:49-54.  Back to cited text no. 62
[PUBMED]    
63.Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 63
[PUBMED]    
64.Ruskin JD, Morton D, Karayazgan B, Amir J. Failed root canals: The case for extraction and immediate implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:829-31.  Back to cited text no. 64
[PUBMED]    
65.White SN, Miklus VG, Potter KS, Cho J, Ngan AY. Endodontics and implants, a catalog of therapeutic contrasts. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2006;6:101-9.  Back to cited text no. 65
[PUBMED]    
66.Ng YL, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: Systematic review of the literature - Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J 2008;41:6-31.  Back to cited text no. 66
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]


This article has been cited by
1 Should retention of a tooth be an important goal of dentistry? How do you decide whether to retain and restore a tooth requiring endodontic treatment or to extract and if possible replace the tooth?
Jessica J. Zachar
Australian Endodontic Journal. 2015; 41(1): 2
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Review of the Li...
Discussion
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5155    
    Printed163    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded3862    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal