Prevalence of Different Types of Crown Restorations after Root Canal Treatment of Posterior Teeth in Kerman, Iran

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Endodontic, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

3 Endodontist, Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

4 Dentist, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

5 Associate Professor, Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Abstract

Background & Aims: Crown restoration of teeth after root canal treatment protects their remaining structure against breakage and infection of the root canal, and will replace the missing structure. This study was performed to identify the prevalence of different types of crown restorations after root canal treatment of posterior teeth in Kerman, Iran, in 2013.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out on 410 individuals (1047 endodontically treated teeth) in 3 radiology centers in Kerman. To collect data, the existence of an endodontically treated posterior tooth was evaluated through panoramic radiography, and patients’ demographic information (including sex, age, education level, and their dentist’s education level) were obtained. The endodontically treated posterior teeth were not entered into this study if they did not have suitable restorations, had lost the tooth crown due to extensive caries, were not preservable, or were bridge abatements. Crown restorations were recorded based on their types, crown, amalgam, and composite with or without cusp coverage, and being a molar or premolar tooth. Data were analyzed in SPSS software using chi-square test. All P-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results: In the present study, 203 (49.5%) men and 207 (50.5%) women participated. The mean age of subjects was 36.84 ± 9.76 years. Among the 1047 studied teeth, 380 (36.3%) were premolar teeth and 667 (63.7%) were molar teeth, and 316 teeth (30.20%) had a full crown. There was a statistically significant difference between existence of crown treatment, and educational level and age of patients. Amalgam and composite restoration had a statistically significant difference in terms of patients’ sex; amalgam restoration was more common in men, while composite restorations were more common in women. Crown treatment was more common in the specialists group, while amalgam restoration without cusp coverage was more common in the general dentists group.

Conclusion: The results showed that amalgam or composite crown restorations without cusp coverage are common, which illustrates the necessity of emphasizing the importance of crown restorations in long term survival of root treated teeth in dentistry colleges.

Keywords


  1. Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2010; 36(4): 609-17.
  2. Stavropoulou AF, Koidis PT. A systematic review of single crowns on endodontically treated teeth. J Dent 2007; 35(10): 761-7.
  3. Shillingburg HT, Sather DA. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. Berlin, Germany: Quintessence Pub.; 2012. p. 203-28.
  4. Berman LH, Hargreaves KM, Cohen SR. Cohen's pathways of the pulp expert consult. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2010. p. 789-91, 780-805.
  5. Salehrabi R, Rotstein I. Endodontic treatment outcomes in a large patient population in the USA: an epidemiological study. J Endod 2004; 30(12): 846-50.
  6. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 93(2): 164-70.
  7. Lazarski MP, Walker WA, Flores CM, Schindler WG, Hargreaves KM. Epidemiological evaluation of the outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment in a large cohort of insured dental patients. J Endod 2001; 27(12): 791-6.
  8. Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ. Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87(3): 256-63.
  9. Ray HA, Trope M. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J 1995; 28(1): 12-8.
  10. Shelley PQ, Johnson BR, BeGole EA. Use of an Electronic Patient Record system to evaluate restorative treatment following root canal therapy. J Dent Educ 2007; 71(10): 1333-9.
  11. Briggs PF, Scott BJ. Evidence-based dentistry: endodontic failure--how should it be managed? Br Dent J 1997; 183(5): 159-64.
  12. Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 1990; 16(10): 498-504.
  13. Cheung GS. Endodontic failures--changing the approach. Int Dent J 1996; 46(3): 131-8.
  14. Weiger R, Axmann-Krcmar D, Lost C. Prognosis of conventional root canal treatment reconsidered. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998; 14(1): 1-9.
  15. Linn J, Messer HH. Effect of restorative procedures on the strength of endodontically treated molars. J Endod 1994; 20(10): 479-85.
  16. Mondelli RF, Barbosa WF, Mondelli J, Franco EB, Carvalho RM. Fracture strength of weakened human premolars restored with amalgam with and without cusp coverage. Am J Dent 1998; 11(4): 181-4.
  17. Hansen EK, Asmussen E, Christiansen NC. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990; 6(2): 49-55.