Outcomes and prognostic factors of apical periodontitis by root canal treatment and endodontic microsurgery-a retrospective cohort study

Background The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome and prognostic factors of root canal treatment (RCT) and endodontic microsurgery (EMS) in the treatment of apical periodontitis (AP), respectively, and to compare the outcome and prognostic factors between initial RCT and nonsurgical retreatment (re-RCT) for AP. Methods Patients with AP were recruited from the Stomatology Department of Peking University Third Hospital from January 2016 to December 2019. Data were collected by medical records review. Univariate analysis of treatment outcome was performed for the total RCT group, initial RCT group, re-RCT group and EMS group, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for the three RCT groups, respectively, but not for the EMS group. Results The overall success of treatment for AP was 73.8%. The success rate of RCT in 229 cases was 70.7%, while that of EMS in 34 cases was 94.1%. The failure of RCT was significantly higher for elderly patients [odds ratio (OR) =1.025, P=0.013], teeth with incomplete fracture (OR =7.082, P=0.013), teeth with a greater crown root ratio (OR =1.198, P=0.029), teeth treated by a general dentist (OR =2.16, P=0.042) and teeth with unqualified treatment (OR =2.841, P=0.002). Of the 166 teeth treated by initial RCT, the success was 68.1%. A greater crown root ratio (OR =1.333, P=0.004) was identified as a risk factor for treatment. Of the 63 teeth treated by re-RCT, the success was 77.8%. A lower success was observed in teeth with unqualified treatment (OR =5.291, P=0.018). With regard to EMS, the univariate analysis showed that none of the variables were significantly related to the outcome. Conclusions For AP treated by RCT, age, incomplete tooth fracture, crown root ratio, doctor classification and unqualified treatment had a strong impact on determining outcome. For initial RCT, crown root ratio was a significant outcome predictor, while for re-RCT, unqualified treatment was a strong statistically significant factor. No significant difference was found between the success of initial RCT and reRCT for AP.