Shanon Patel

Background Apical periodontitis ( AP ) is a chronic inflammatory response of microbial aetiology. Pathological changes associated with AP may not be visible on radiographic images and may linger without causing any symptoms. Clinicians rely mostly on clinical examination and imaging techniques to establish a diagnosis. Objectives The aim of this review was to answer the following question using the PICO format: In the adult human permanent dentition (P), what is the efficacy of diagnostic imaging of the periapical tissues (I) using histopathology as a reference standard (C) in the diagnosis of apical periodontitis, in terms of diagnostic accuracy (O). Methods MEDLINE , EMBASE , Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for English articles published through October 2021. At least two independent reviewers evaluated the study design, imaging modality used, histopathological assessment, outcome measures, results and conclusions for each article. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2. Results The initial search strategy identified 544 articles. Seven articles were included for analysis in the final review, all of which involved tissue samples obtained from cadavers. No clinical studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria. A consistently low sensitivity score and negative predictive value were reported for periapical radiography, especially in comparison to CBCT, which scored highly. Both modalities achieved high scores for specificity and positive predictive value. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was lower for root‐filled teeth in comparison to non‐root‐filled teeth. Discussion Assessment of the periapical tissues using periapical radiographs was shown to have a low to moderate agreement with the histopathological assessment. CBCT was reported to be more accurate than PR and demonstrated a good agreement with histopathology, especially for non‐root‐filled teeth. Conclusions This review identified a need for greater standardization in methodology and reporting, and as the findings are based on cadaver studies, their clinical relevance must be interpreted with caution. Registration PROSPERO (CRD42021272147).

Vertical root fracture (VRF) is a common reason for the extraction of root filled teeth. The accurate diagnosis of VRF may be challenging due to the absence of clinical signs, whilst conventional radiographic assessment is often inconclusive. However, an understanding of the aetiology of VRFs, and more importantly, the key predisposing factors, is crucial in identifying teeth that may be susceptible. Thorough clinical examination with magnification and co‐axial lighting is essential in identifying VRFs, and although CBCT is unable to reliably detect VRFs per se , the pattern of bone loss typically associated with VRF can be fully appreciated, and therefore, increases the probability of correct diagnosis and management. The prevalence of VRFs in root filled teeth is significantly greater than in teeth with vital pulps, demonstrating that the combination of loss of structural integrity, presence of pre‐existing fractures and biochemical effects of loss of vitality is highly relevant. Careful assessment of the occlusal scheme, presence of deflective contacts and identification of parafunctional habits are imperative in both preventing and managing VRFs. Furthermore, anatomical factors such as root canal morphology may predispose certain teeth to VRF. The influence of access cavity design and root canal instrumentation protocols should be considered although the impact of these on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth is not clearly validated. The post‐endodontic restoration of root filled teeth should be expedient and considerate to the residual tooth structure. Posts should be placed ‘passively’ and excessive ‘post‐space’ preparation should be avoided. This narrative review aims to present the aetiology, potential predisposing factors, histopathology, diagnosis and management of VRF and present perspectives for future research. Currently, there are limited options other than extraction for the management of VRF, although root resection may be considered in multi‐rooted teeth. Innovative techniques to ‘repair’ VRFs using both orthograde and surgical approaches require further research and validation. The prevention of VRFs is critical; identifying susceptible teeth, utilizing conservative endodontic procedures, together with expedient and appropriate post‐endodontic restorative procedures is paramount to reducing the incidence of terminal VRFs.

Root resorption is the loss of dental hard tissue because of odontoclastic action. In permanent teeth, it is undesirable and pathological in nature. Root resorption may occur on the inner aspect of the root canal (internal root resorption) or on the outer aspect of the root (external root resorption). Regardless of its location, root resorption is irreversible, and may result in discomfort for the patient, requires management and/or, in some cases, results in the premature loss of the affected tooth. Root resorption is often challenging to accurately diagnose and manage. The aim of this narrative review is to present the relevant literature on the aetiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and management, as well as discuss the future directions of diagnosis and management of root resorption.