ABSTRACT There are various factors that affect the success and outcome of root canal treatment.  The aim of the study is to thoroughly investigate the prognosis of endodontic treated by general dental practitioners in the region of Västerbotten, Sweden, and try to identify factors that are related to an unsuccessful root canal treatment. Our hypothesis is about prognosis for teeth, which are treated by a general dentist, is worse than the teeth, which are treated by specialists, and dental students.  Total 210 patients were included in our study. Of those 100 were excluded due to lack of documentation. We analysed these factors, aseptic treatment e.g. rubber dam, quality of root filling length, coronal restoration, and radiograph after 4 years.  In our study, rubber dam was used only in 64 teeth (58 %) throughout whole treatment and only in 27 teeth (22 %) have seen that root filling follow the standard criteria. Twenty-two teeth (20 %) have received coronal restoration and only 21 teeth (19 %) had radiograph after 4 years, six teeth (5 %) had retreatment and 5 teeth (4 %) have been extracted. Lack of documentation was another striking finding which made it difficult for our study to extract complete information.  In conclusion, we identified some factors, which can be improved.   Inadequate documentation.   Deficiencies in pre-treatment diagnostics.   Aseptic treatment e.g. rubber dam   Failure in follow-up documentation of treated teeth   Quality of root filing. / Enodontics

Made available in DSpace on 2014-08-20T14:30:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese_Silvia_Terra_Fontes.pdf: 622962 bytes, checksum: 7bf1877d5a2267c9c8ee6f9619480978 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-12-16 / During restorative procedures, different isolation methods of the operative field can be used to promote moisture control and retraction of the gingival tissues. The aim of the present clinical trial was to evaluate the effects of two isolation techniques on the clinical performance of Class V restorations, as well on the periodontal conditions of restored sites. Patients presenting at least two noncarious cervical lesions (NCLs) were enrolled in this study. The NCLs were randomized into the following groups: (1) isolation performed with rubber dam and gingival retraction clamp and (2) isolation provided with cotton rolls and gingival retraction cord. Both techniques were used with a saliva suction device. All restorative procedures were performed using a selfetching adhesive system and a nanofilled composite resin according to the manufacturer s instructions. The clinical performance of restorations was recorded in terms of fracture and retention of restoration, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative hypersensitivity, and preservation of tooth vitality at 1 week and 6 months after placement.The periodontal condition of restored sites was evaluated based on the presence of supragingival plaque, gingival marginal bleeding, probing depth, and relative gingival recession. Thirty patients were enrolled in the study, yielding a total of 136 restorations (68 restorations per group). At the 6-month followup, one restoration from the rubber dam group and three restorations from the cotton roll group lost retention. In this period, the highest incidence of small marginal defects was observed in the group isolated with cotton rolls (p= 0.01). Both groups showed a statistically significant increase in supragingival plaque at six months after restoration placement (p< 0.05). However, no significant differences were detected among the two groups tested with respect to any of the criteria used to evaluate the restorations or the periodontal condition (p> 0.05). Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that both isolation techniques resulted in equally clinically acceptable restorations without producing negative effects on periodontal tissues / Durante os procedimentos restauradores, diferentes métodos de isolamento do campo operatório podem ser utilizados a fim de promover controle de umidade e retração de tecidos gengivais. O objetivo do presente ensaio clinico foi avaliar os efeitos de duas técnicas de isolamento no desempenho clínico de restaurações Classe V, bem como na condição periodontal dos sítios restaurados. Pacientes apresentando, no mínimo, duas lesões cervicais não cariosas (LCNCs) foram selecionados para este estudo. As LCNCs foram randomizadas nos seguintes grupos: (1) isolamento com lençol de borracha e grampo retrator de gengiva e (2) isolamento com rolos de algodão e fio retrator de gengiva. Um sugador de saliva foi utilizado em ambas as técnicas. Todos os procedimentos restauradores foram executados com sistema adesivo autocondicionante e compósito restaurador nanoparticulado, seguindo as instruções dos fabricantes. O desempenho clinico das restaurações foi avaliado em termos de fratura e retenção da restauração, adaptação marginal, manchamento marginal, sensibilidade pós-operatória e preservação da vitalidade pulpar após 1 semana e 6 meses da inserção das restaurações.A condição periodontal dos sítios restaurados foi avaliada com base na presença de placa supragengival, sangramento gengival marginal, profundidade de sondagem e recessão gengival relativa. Trinta pacientes foram incluídos no estudo, resultando num total de 136 restaurações (68 restaurações por grupo). Após seis meses de acompanhamento, uma restauração do grupo isolado com lençol de borracha e três restaurações do grupo isolado com rolos de algodão perderam a retenção. Neste período, uma maior incidência de pequenos defeitos marginais foi observada no grupo que recebeu isolamento com rolos de algodão (p= 0.01). Ambos os grupos apresentaram um aumento significativo do acúmulo de placa supragengival após 6 meses da inserção das restaurações (p< 0.05). Porém, não foram detectadas diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os dois grupos testados considerando os critérios utilizados para avaliação das restaurações e da condição periodontal (p> 0.05). Dentro das limitações deste estudo, foi possível concluir que ambas as técnicas de isolamento resultaram em restaurações clinicamente aceitáveis, sem produzir efeitos negativos nos tecidos periodontais

No description available.