Saudi Endodontic Journal

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2019  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 88--95

Root canal treatment with postcore restoration versus implant restoration: Clinical and radiographic outcome and quality of life after treatment


Abed Al-Hadi Hamasha1, Ashraf Fareed Nbhan2 
1 Department of Preventive Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Abed Al-Hadi Hamasha
Department of Preventive Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh 11426, Saudi Arabia

Introduction: The study intended to support the decision-making process regarding whether to save a compromised tooth by endodontic treatment with a subsequent postcore and crown or to extract such a tooth in favor of implant replacement. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore differences between the two modalities of treatments in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes and quality of life. Materials and Methods: A randomly selected 126 patients with 150 root canal treatment (RCT) teeth compared with 150 single-tooth implants in 129 patients was conducted at Jordan University of Science and Technology in Jordan. Participants were clinically and radiographically examined after 1 year of treatment. Administered questionnaires were filled on patient interview consisting of patient's characteristics and oral health impact profile (OHIP) instrument. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis using Mann–Whitney tests and Chi-square tests. Results: Treatment outcomes for RCT and implant groups were as follows, respectively: success (75.3% and 56.7%), satisfactory survival (8.7% and 24.7%), compromised survival (4% and 10%), and failure (12% and 8.7%). Improvement of the subject's OHIP items reveals a notable improvement (67%–100%) following RCT (mean improvement = 96.32) and implant (mean improvement = 89.04) treatment. Conclusion: RCT and implant achieved equivalent proportion of cases having a good prognosis. However, implant restoration was associated with more postoperative complications. Both treatments achieved a predictable improvement in patient's OHIP.


How to cite this article:
Hamasha AA, Nbhan AF. Root canal treatment with postcore restoration versus implant restoration: Clinical and radiographic outcome and quality of life after treatment.Saudi Endod J 2019;9:88-95


How to cite this URL:
Hamasha AA, Nbhan AF. Root canal treatment with postcore restoration versus implant restoration: Clinical and radiographic outcome and quality of life after treatment. Saudi Endod J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 22 ];9:88-95
Available from: http://www.saudiendodj.com/article.asp?issn=1658-5984;year=2019;volume=9;issue=2;spage=88;epage=95;aulast=Hamasha;type=0