Endodontic Treatment Outcomes

Root canal treatment (RCT) is a cornerstone of restorative dentistry, aiming to eliminate infection within the root canal system, prevent reinfection, and preserve the natural dentition in a functional and symptom-free state. Despite advances in endodontic techniques, materials, and imaging, outcomes following RCT can vary. Understanding how treatment outcomes are defined, assessed, and influenced is essential for clinicians to make informed decisions, communicate effectively with patients, and manage cases where healing is uncertain or unfavourable.

Historically, endodontic outcomes were described in rigid terms of “success” or “failure.” However, this binary classification does not adequately reflect the biological complexity of periapical healing or the realities of long-term tooth survival. Modern endodontics increasingly embraces a more pragmatic and patient-centred approach, recognising that an asymptomatic, functional tooth—even in the presence of incomplete radiographic healing—may still represent an acceptable and clinically successful outcome.

Ideal Outcomes of Root Canal Treatment

The ideal outcome following root canal treatment is the prevention or resolution of apical periodontitis, accompanied by the absence of clinical signs and symptoms. This reflects successful eradication or control of intracanal infection and restoration of periapical health.

However, healing following RCT is not always predictable. In some cases, apical periodontitis may:

Advertisements
  • Persist despite treatment
  • Develop after treatment
  • Recur following an initial period of healing

 

This variability is influenced by numerous biological and technical factors, including the complexity of the root canal system, the microbial load, host immune response, and the quality of both endodontic and restorative procedures.

 

From “Success and Failure” to “Tooth Survival”

Traditionally, endodontic outcomes were categorised as either successful or failed, based largely on radiographic findings. A persisting periapical radiolucency was often considered synonymous with failure, even in the absence of symptoms.

Modern thinking challenges this approach. A more pragmatic and clinically relevant model considers outcomes acceptable if:

  • The tooth is asymptomatic
  • The tooth is functional
  • There is no evidence of active infection
  • There is reduction in size of any periapical radiolucency, even if complete resolution has not yet occurred

 

This concept aligns closely with the idea of tooth survival, defined as the retention of a functional, symptom-free tooth over time. Importantly, this mirrors outcome assessment in implant dentistry, where survival and function often take precedence over idealised radiographic appearances.

 

Prognostic Factors Influencing Endodontic Outcomes

Several factors influence the likelihood of a favourable outcome following RCT. Among these, three have consistently demonstrated strong prognostic significance.

1. Pre-treatment Status of the Periapical Tissues

The condition of the periapical tissues before treatment is one of the most important predictors of outcome.

  • Teeth without pre-treatment periapical radiolucency
    These cases generally represent vital pulps or necrotic pulps without apical periodontitis. Healing rates in such cases are high, with reported success approaching 95%.

  • Teeth with pre-existing periapical lesions
    The presence of apical periodontitis indicates established infection and host inflammatory response. Although favourable outcomes are still achievable, healing rates are lower compared with teeth without lesions.

    Lesion size also matters:

    • Smaller lesions (<5 mm) have a more favourable prognosis

    • Larger lesions may take longer to heal or may heal by scar tissue formation rather than complete osseous regeneration

2. Quality and Length of Root Canal Filling (RCF)

The technical quality of the root canal filling is a critical determinant of outcome.

A favourable outcome is more likely when the RCF:

  • Is well compacted
  • Extends to within 2 mm of the radiographic apex
  • Demonstrates homogeneous density with minimal voids

 

Underfilling may leave residual infected tissue or microorganisms in the apical portion of the canal, while overfilling can irritate periapical tissues and compromise healing. Both scenarios are associated with reduced success rates.

3. Quality of the Coronal Restoration

A well-executed RCT can still fail if the coronal seal is inadequate. Coronal leakage allows oral bacteria to re-enter the root canal system, leading to reinfection.

A high-quality coronal restoration should:

  • Provide an effective bacterial seal
  • Restore tooth form and function
  • Protect the tooth from fracture

 

Studies have demonstrated that teeth with good endodontic treatment but poor coronal restorations have worse outcomes than teeth with slightly compromised RCTs but excellent coronal seals.

 

Classification of Endodontic Outcomes

There are no universally accepted standard terms for endodontic outcomes, and the topic remains debated. Nonetheless, outcomes are commonly described under three broad categories: favourable, uncertain, and unfavourable.

Favourable Outcome

A favourable outcome is characterised by:

  • Absence of symptoms

  • A functional tooth

  • Clinically healthy soft tissues

  • Radiographic evidence of:

    • Healthy periapical tissues, or

    • Healing of a previous lesion, either by bone regeneration or scar tissue formation

Healing by scar tissue may present as a persistent radiolucency but is stable, asymptomatic, and non-progressive.

Uncertain Outcome

An uncertain outcome occupies a grey area between success and failure.

Features may include:

  • The tooth may be symptom-free or associated with mild, low-grade tenderness to palpation or percussion
  • Radiographically, a periapical radiolucency persists but does not increase in size
  • Healing is incomplete within the 4-year assessment period

 

Such cases require ongoing review rather than immediate intervention, as late healing is well documented in endodontics.

Unfavourable Outcome

An unfavourable outcome is indicated by:

  • Presence of symptoms (pain, swelling)

  • The tooth being non-functional

  • Clinical signs of infection, such as:

    • Sinus tract

    • Localised swelling

  • Radiographic evidence of:

    • A new periapical radiolucency, or

    • Persistence or increase in size of an existing radiolucency

These cases typically require further intervention, such as retreatment, surgery, or extraction.

 

Assessment of Endodontic Outcomes

Clinical Assessment

Clinical history and examination are essential components of outcome assessment. The clinician should evaluate:

  • Presence or absence of pain
  • Tenderness to palpation or percussion
  • Swelling or sinus tract formation
  • Tooth mobility
  • Function in occlusion

 

Symptoms are often more clinically relevant than radiographic findings alone.

Radiographic Assessment

Radiographic evaluation is used to assess periapical status and technical quality of treatment.

  • The long-cone parallel technique with film holders is the gold standard
  • Serial radiographs allow comparison over time

 

The radiology report should include assessment of:

  • Length and compaction of the RCF
  • Presence or absence of periapical radiolucency
  • Changes in size of any radiolucency compared with pre-treatment
  • Quality of coronal restoration
  • Presence of caries
  • Periodontal status

 

Timing of Outcome Assessment

Conventionally:

  • 1 year post-treatment is considered the minimum time at which an outcome decision can be made
  • If symptoms are present, review may occur earlier
  • If the outcome is uncertain, follow-up should continue for up to 4 years

 

Late healing is not uncommon, particularly in teeth with large pre-existing lesions.

Role of CBCT

Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) may be indicated when:

  • Symptoms persist but conventional radiographs show no pathology
  • Missed canals or complex canal anatomy are suspected
  • Surgical planning is required

 

CBCT should be used judiciously due to radiation dose considerations.

 

Unfavourable Outcomes and the Need for Retreatment

Causes of Unfavourable Outcomes

The most common endodontic causes of unfavourable outcomes are:

  • Reinfection of the root canal system

  • Persistent infection due to:

    • Missed canals

    • Inadequate cleaning and shaping

    • Poor obturation

    • Coronal leakage

Complex root canal anatomy, such as isthmuses and accessory canals, can harbour microorganisms even after thorough treatment.

Microbiology of Persistent Infection

The microbial profile of persistently infected, endodontically treated teeth differs from that of untreated necrotic teeth.

Microorganisms more commonly found in retreatment cases include:

  • Enterococcus faecalis
  • Candida albicans

 

These organisms are particularly resistant to intracanal medicaments and can survive harsh environmental conditions.

 

Endodontic Retreatment

Principles of Retreatment

Retreatment involves:

  • Removal of the existing root canal filling material
  • Identification and treatment of missed canals
  • Improved disinfection of the canal system
  • Re-obturation with an adequate seal

 

The aim is to eliminate persistent infection and allow periapical healing.

Indications for Retreatment

Retreatment is indicated when:

  • There are clinical symptoms
  • Radiographic pathology persists or worsens
  • Technical deficiencies are evident and correctable
  • The tooth is restorable and has strategic value

 

Surgical Endodontics

When nonsurgical retreatment is not feasible—such as in cases where the canal is inaccessible due to posts or crowns—surgical endodontics may be required.

This typically involves:

  • Apicectomy
  • Removal of infected periapical tissue
  • Root-end preparation and filling

 

Surgical approaches allow direct management of apical pathology while preserving the coronal restoration.

 

Conclusion

Assessment of endodontic treatment outcomes requires a nuanced understanding of biology, radiology, and clinical presentation. Moving beyond simplistic notions of success and failure, modern endodontics emphasises tooth survival, function, and patient comfort.

Prognosis is influenced by pre-treatment periapical status, quality of root canal obturation, and integrity of the coronal restoration. Accurate assessment over appropriate timeframes, combined with judicious use of advanced imaging, allows clinicians to distinguish between healing, uncertainty, and true failure.

When outcomes are unfavourable, retreatment and surgical endodontics offer predictable options to manage persistent infection and preserve the natural dentition. Ultimately, thoughtful diagnosis, meticulous technique, and long-term follow-up underpin successful endodontic care.

 

References

  1. Ng Y-L, Mann V, Gulabivala K.
    Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – Part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2007;40(12):921–939.
  2. Ng Y-L, Mann V, Gulabivala K.
    Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – Part 2. Influence of clinical factors.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2008;41(1):6–31.
  3. Ng Y-L, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K.
    Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – Part 3. Influence of dentist factors and systemic factors.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2008;41(1):17–31.
  4. Ørstavik D, Kerekes K, Eriksen HM.
    The periapical index: a scoring system for radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis.
    Endodontics & Dental Traumatology. 1986;2(1):20–34.
  5. European Society of Endodontology (ESE).
    Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2006;39(12):921–930.
  6. Sjögren U, Figdor D, Persson S, Sundqvist G.
    Influence of infection at the time of root filling on the outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis.
    International Endodontic Journal. 1997;30(5):297–306.
  7. Ray HA, Trope M.
    Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration.
    Journal of Endodontics. 1995;21(4):200–204.
  8. Nair PNR.
    On the causes of persistent apical periodontitis: a review.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2006;39(4):249–281.
  9. Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN.
    Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures.
    Journal of Endodontics. 2008;34(11):1291–1301.
  10. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjögren U.
    Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative retreatment.
    Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics. 1998;85(1):86–93.
  11. Setzer FC, Shah SB, Kohli MR, Karabucak B, Kim S.
    Outcome of endodontic surgery: a meta-analysis of the literature—Part 1: Comparison of traditional root-end surgery and endodontic microsurgery.
    Journal of Endodontics. 2010;36(11):1757–1765.
  12. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E.
    The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2007;40(10):818–830.
  13. Ng Y-L, Mann V, Gulabivala K.
    A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1 – periapical health.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2011;44:583–609.
  14. Ng Y-L, Mann V, Gulabivala K.
    A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 2 – tooth survival.
    International Endodontic Journal. 2011;44:610–625.