A Contemporary Study of Endodontic Therapy Versus Dental Implants

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed at analyzing the endodontic therapy versus dental implants as a contemporary study.

Methods: This study discuss the various factors need to be considered, such as clinician’s expertise, strategic location of the tooth, bone quality, soft-tissue quality and quantity, the patient’s periodontal status, tooth restorability, and the patient’s medical history when giving patients options for their restorations, an implant surgeon must address the possibility of endodontic therapy and general dentists/endodontists must discuss the ramifications of implant therapy.

Discussion: When comparing these two treatment modalities, the clinician should be able to estimate both the endodontic and the restorative prognosis of a tooth. Clinical factors, such as the presence/size of a periapical lesion or the necessity of repetition of an older failing root canal treatment have been negatively related with prognosis of those teeth. Furthermore, the experience of the operator seems crucial since specialists in endodontics were reported to have higher success (up to 98% in a 5-year period) than general practitioners.

Conclusion: A simple comparison of long-term survival or success rates of root filled teeth and implants does not fulfil the demand for a comprehensive decision-making process, which includes multiple factors to evaluate, individual case evaluation and a thorough treatment planning.