Berit Ek, S. Zweig, Ramon G. Roges, Yaara Berdan, Rafael Roges, A. Abulhamael, Abrar Kutbi, A. Alqutub, Osama S. Alothmani, Amna Y. Siddiqui
{"title":"Prevalence of Vertical Root Fractures in a University Endodontics Program versus a Private Endodontics Office","authors":"Berit Ek, S. Zweig, Ramon G. Roges, Yaara Berdan, Rafael Roges, A. Abulhamael, Abrar Kutbi, A. Alqutub, Osama S. Alothmani, Amna Y. Siddiqui","doi":"10.1155/2023/2098629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Vertical root fractures (VRFs) typically have a poor prognosis with an extraction or occasionally root amputation as the preferred treatment. VRFs have been considered an epidemic, motivating changes in the access openings, as well as in the preparation and disinfection protocols of endodontic treatment. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of VRFs by tracking cases in both a University Endodontic Program (UEP) and a private endodontics practice (PP). We also evaluated changes in prevalence during COVID-19 along with the alterations in the frequency of cases diagnosed by clinical and radiographic signs which were later confirmed by direct visualization compared to those in which the suspicion was based on clinical and radiographic signs alone. Methods and Materials. This retrospective study looked at the prevalence of VRF in patient records at UEP and a PP. Data for the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 time periods were extracted from patient records and referral letters then compared. Data for suspected and confirmed prevalence were compared. Results. The UEP group included 21,156 patients while the PP group comprised 7,209 patients. The prevalence of VRFs in the former cohort was 1.80%, while 2.62% of the latter cohort exhibited VRFs with a combined total of 2.01%. The combined total prevalence of VRFs pre-COVID-19 was 1.72%, increasing from 2.1% to 3.82% during COVID-19 (\n \n p\n <\n 0.0001\n \n ). The same applied to suspected cases for both clinical settings. The increase in confirmed cases between the two periods was statistically significant for the UEP group (\n \n p\n =\n 0.0202\n \n ) but it was insignificant for the PP group (\n \n p\n =\n 0.0721\n \n ). Conclusion. The combined prevalence for VRFs was 2.01% for all years denying the claim that VRF is a pandemic phenomenon. COVID-19 period saw almost a double increase in the prevalence of VRF compared to pre-COVID-19 era. This was consequently associated with a significant increase in the number of suspected VRF cases.","PeriodicalId":13947,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Dentistry","volume":" March","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2098629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction. Vertical root fractures (VRFs) typically have a poor prognosis with an extraction or occasionally root amputation as the preferred treatment. VRFs have been considered an epidemic, motivating changes in the access openings, as well as in the preparation and disinfection protocols of endodontic treatment. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the prevalence of VRFs by tracking cases in both a University Endodontic Program (UEP) and a private endodontics practice (PP). We also evaluated changes in prevalence during COVID-19 along with the alterations in the frequency of cases diagnosed by clinical and radiographic signs which were later confirmed by direct visualization compared to those in which the suspicion was based on clinical and radiographic signs alone. Methods and Materials. This retrospective study looked at the prevalence of VRF in patient records at UEP and a PP. Data for the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 time periods were extracted from patient records and referral letters then compared. Data for suspected and confirmed prevalence were compared. Results. The UEP group included 21,156 patients while the PP group comprised 7,209 patients. The prevalence of VRFs in the former cohort was 1.80%, while 2.62% of the latter cohort exhibited VRFs with a combined total of 2.01%. The combined total prevalence of VRFs pre-COVID-19 was 1.72%, increasing from 2.1% to 3.82% during COVID-19 (
p
<
0.0001
). The same applied to suspected cases for both clinical settings. The increase in confirmed cases between the two periods was statistically significant for the UEP group (
p
=
0.0202
) but it was insignificant for the PP group (
p
=
0.0721
). Conclusion. The combined prevalence for VRFs was 2.01% for all years denying the claim that VRF is a pandemic phenomenon. COVID-19 period saw almost a double increase in the prevalence of VRF compared to pre-COVID-19 era. This was consequently associated with a significant increase in the number of suspected VRF cases.