Retrospective Examination of Apical Surgery Indications Presented by General Practitioner, Maxillofacial Surgeon or Endodontist and Multidisciplinary Determined by Maxillofacial Surgeon and Endodontist Pratisyen Diş Hekimi, Çene Cerrahı veya Endodontistin Koyduğu ve Çene Cerrahı ile Endodontistin Multidisipliner Olarak Koyduğu Apikal Cerrahi Endikasyonlarının Retrospektif Olarak İncelenmesi


Creative Commons License

ÇANAKÇİ F. G., ÇANAKÇİ B. C.

Selcuk Dental Journal, cilt.8, sa.3, ss.744-749, 2021 (Scopus, TRDizin) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 8 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.15311/selcukdentj.803746
  • Dergi Adı: Selcuk Dental Journal
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.744-749
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Apical surgery, Endodontist, General practitioner, Maxillo-facial surgeon
  • Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
  • Trakya Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background: Apical surgery is a surgical operation performed by maxillo-facial surgeons and endodontists for the treatment of odontogenic infections. The aim of this study is to compare the indications of apical surgery by dentists in different branches with the indications by the dental surgeon and endodontist in our institution. Methods: 590 patients who were referred to Trakya University, Faculty of Dentistry between 2014-2020 for apical surgery were participated. The evaluated criterias are the expertise of the referring dentist, the treatment applied to the teeth before the referral, the presence of symptoms before / during the referral, the size of the periapical lesion present in the relevant teeth and the indication in our institution. Results: The rate of AC indication for patients in our institution was determined to be % 8. The apical surgary rate in our institution was 33% of the patients referred by the endodontist, 11% by the maxillofacial surgeon and 2% by the general practitioner dentist (P <0.05). Root canal treatment was not applied to 64% of patients before referral. Apical surgery indication rates in our institution were 11% for radiologically no lesions at the root tip, 3% for lesion containing one tooth, 8% for lesion containing one-three teeth, and 9% for lesions larger than three teeth. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, there are different opinions between the general practitioner, the surgeon and the endodontist in terms of the indication for apical surgery. In addition, the rate of indication that the endodontist and maxillofacial surgeon has established with multidisciplinary evaluation is lower.