EC Dental Science

Endodontics remains a difficult and demanding discipline, which cannot forgive approximation. A part of the failures seems to be linked to the non-respect of the recommendations of good practices, concerning the respect of the rules of asepsis and the taking of radiographs but also to an underestimation of the complexity and the difficulty of the case before treatment. The improvement of initial training, with the clinical teaching of simplified but scientifically based techniques, and the recent obligation of continuous training should allow a better penetration of these standards in the future and an improvement in the success rate of endodontic treatments. At the same time, the technological advances of the last two decades have made it possible to push back the technical limits of these procedures and to extend the indications for treatment to clinical situations that were unmanageable a few years ago.

The objective of these case studies is to present the different endodontic access difficulties encountered before and during treatment and the successful management of these complexities by starting with a good fundamental examination including the patient history, clinical results, and x-ray examinations before and after.

Keywords: Endodontics; Radiographs; Pulp Stone; Root Anchors

1. Almohaimede AA., et al. “Significance of Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment: A Retrospective Study”. International Dental Journal5 (2022): 648-653.
2. Bhuva Bhavin and Omar Ikram. “Complications in Endodontics”. Primary Dental Journal4 (2020): 52-58.
3. White Shane N and Daniel J Boehne. “Endodontic Complications”. In Avoiding and Treating Dental Complications, edited by Deborah A. Termeie, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc (2016): 50-72.
4. Essam O., et al. “The Endodontic Complexity Assessment Tool (E‐CAT): A Digital Form for Assessing Root Canal Treatment Case Difficulty”. International Endodontic Journal7 (2021): 1189-1199.
5. Fonseca Tavares., et al. “Guided Endodontic Access of Calcified Anterior Teeth”. Journal of Endodontics7 (2018): 1195-1199.
6. Mallishery Shivani., et al. “The Precision of Case Difficulty and Referral Decisions: An Innovative Automated Approach”. Clinical Oral Investigations6 (2020): 1909-1915.
7. Amza O., et al. “Etiology and prevention of an endodontic iatrogenic event: instrument fracture”. Journal of Medicine and Life 13 (2020): 378-381.
8. Sakout and Chraibi. Faculté de Médecine Dentaire de Rabat Université Mohammed V - Souissi “La Reprise De Traitement Canalaire Protocole OPE”.
9. McCoy, Todd. “Managing Endodontic Instrument Separation”. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry4 (2015): 262-265.
10. , et al. “Factors Governing the Success of Non-Surgical Endodontics: A Review”. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences 8.3 (2022): 124-127.
11. Wong Ralan. “Conventional Endodontic Failure and Retreatment”. Dental Clinics of North America1 (2004): 265-289.
12. Halimi Abdelali., et al. “Facteurs Influençant La Dépose D’instruments Fracturés En Endodontie Factors Influencing the Removal of Fractured Endodontic Instruments”. Journal of the American Dental Association (2000).
13. Carrotte Peter. “21^st Century Endodontics: Part 2”. International Dental Journal3 (2005): 162-167.
14. Miccoli Gabriele., et al. “Possible Complications of Endodontic Treatments”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice5 (2020): 473-474.
15. Richert Raphaël., et al. “Decision Support for Removing Fractured Endodontic Instruments: A Patient-Specific Approach”. Applied Sciences6 (2021): 2602.
16. N Douki., et al. “An Effective Approach to Remove a Fractured Endodontic Instrument”. Medicon Dental Sciences1 (2022): 12-15.
17. Fezai Hessa and Samira Al-Salehi. “The Relationship between Endodontic Case Complexity and Treatment Outcomes”. Journal of Dentistry 85 (2019): 88-92.