PubMed · 9084306
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B Langer. 1996. Root resections revisited.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9084306/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The radiographic entity known as the "furcation arrow" has long been used in practice even though little is known about its usefulness as a clinical indicator. The definitive study of the furcation arrow suggests that its presence on a radiograph reliably predicts furcation invasion, but this has not been confirmed in an in vivo investigation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the furcation arrow in a clinical setting, testing the assertion that the furcation arrow image is an accurate predictor of furcation invasion. Specifically, we sought to determine the following. First, what is the prevalence of furcation arrow images in the radiographs of maxillary molars with periodontitis? Second, what is the interexaminer agreement on what constitutes a furcation arrow? Third, how does the presence or absence of a furcation arrow correlate with the true clinical status of the furcation? Fourth, what is the sensitivity and specificity of the furcation arrow as a diagnostic indicator? METHODS: Eighty-nine patients requiring surgical treatment of periodontitis in the maxillary molar regions were included in this study. Before surgery, one of five calibrated examiners viewed periapical and bitewing radiographs of the surgical site and recorded the presence or absence of a furcation arrow at each proximal furcation. Before administering anesthesia, the same examiner recorded a Hamp index value of each proximal furcation, with a second Hamp index taken after flap reflection and debridement. After surgery, each of the four remaining examiners independently reviewed the radiographs for furcation arrows. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed to correlate the appearance of the furcation arrow image to the actual degree of furcation invasion as determined by the intrasurgical Hamp index. RESULTS: A total of 164 maxillary molars were examined, providing 328 interproximal furcations; 111 (33.8%) furcations were determined at surgical debridement to have a furcation invasion of Hamp degree 1 or greater. Of the 111 furcation invasions, 43 (38.7%) were predicted by a furcation arrow image seen by at least three of the five examiners. When comparing the appearance of the radiographic image to the extent of furcation invasion, 20 of 64 (31.3%) Hamp 1 furcation invasions and 23 of 47 (48.9%) Hamp 2 and 3 furcation invasions were predicted by furcation arrows observed by at least three of five examiners. The multirater kappa statistic for interexaminer agreement on the presence or absence of the image was 0.489. The sensitivity of the furcation arrow image as a diagnostic marker was 38.7%, and the specificity was 92.2%; the positive predictive value of the image was 71.7%, and the negative predictive value was 74.6%. Of the 324 furcations used to compare clinical indices, the agreement of preanesthesia and postdebridement Hamp indices was 0% for degree 3, 83.7% for degree 2, and 98.4% for degree 1 furcation lesions. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the furcation arrow has limited usefulness as a diagnostic marker of furcation invasion. The image is difficult to interpret and highly subjective and can correctly predict furcation invasions only approximately 70% of the time when present on the radiograph. In addition, when furcation invasions are truly present, the furcation arrow is seen in <40% of sites.
BACKGROUND: Successful treatment of molar furcation defects remains a challenge in clinical practice. Knowledge of anatomic factors facilitates predictable management of furcation involvement lesions. The degree of success in managing furcation involvement is inversely related to the horizontal probing depth. The depth of the horizontal component of attachment loss can vary depending on the external tooth-surface reference points used. However, the anatomical factors affecting horizontal component of attachment loss have not been previously assessed. Therefore, this study determined the bucco-lingual measurements of the cemento-enamel junction and the mesial and distal roots and at the level of root separation. METHODS: One hundred extracted permanent human mandibular first (N = 50) and second (N = 50) molars were studied. Four horizontal bucco-lingual widths were measured with calibrated calipers: 1) furcation entrance/roof (FE); 2) cemento-enamel junction level (CEJ); 3) mesial root width (MRW); and 4) distal root width (DRW). RESULTS: The mean widths at FE, CEJ, MRW, and DRW were, respectively, 5.53 +/- 0.45 mm, 8.71 +/- 0.54 mm, 8.57 +/- 0.54 mm, and 7.97 +/- 0.65 mm in the first molars and 5.61 +/- 0.65 mm, 8.40 +/- 0.65 mm, 7.95 +/- 0.88 mm, and 7.16 +/- 0.84 mm in the second molars. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences between FE and the other variables tested. The results showed that the bucco-lingual width of the furcation roof is considerably shorter than the MRW and DRW. The difference in the mean bucco-lingual dimension between FE and the other measurements occurred in all teeth evaluated and varied between 0.7 and 4.30 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that clinical measurements of horizontal probing depth that use the external surfaces of roots as reference points overestimate the true anatomical component of furcation involvement in mandibular molars. Conversely, positive treatment outcomes in these teeth may be underestimated. This has implications not only for clinical practice but also for clinical research studies evaluating treatment outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for furcation defects. BACKGROUND: The evidence for the effectiveness of GTR in furcation defects has not yet been systematically appraised. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials with at least 6 months' follow-up comparing GTR with surgical debridement (open flap debridement, OFD). Data sources included electronic databases, hand-searched journals and contact with experts. Screening, data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by multiple reviewers. The primary outcome measure was reduction in open horizontal furcation depth, secondary outcomes were frequency of furcation closure, gain in horizontal and vertical probing attachment and reduction of vertical probing depth. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, reduction in horizontal furcation depth assessed during re-entry, the weighted mean difference between GTR and control was 1.51 mm (95% CI [0.39-2.62], chi-square for heterogeneity 67.6 (df = 3), P < 0.001) in mandibular class II furcations, 1.05 mm (95% CI [0.46-1.64, chi-square for heterogeneity 34.9 (df = 3), P < 0.001) in maxillary class II furcations, and 0.87 mm (95% CI [-0.08-1.82], chi-square for heterogeneity 0.1 (df = 4), P = 0.991) in studies that had combined mandibular and maxillary class II furcations. For the secondary outcomes, GTR treatment led to significantly better results than open flap debridement. No meta-analysis could be performed for frequency of furcation closure because of sparse data. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GTR was consistently more effective than OFD in reducing open horizontal furcation depths, horizontal and vertical attachment levels and pocket depths for mandibular or maxillary class II furcation defects. However, these improvements were modest, variable and there was only a limited number of studies available to appraise the effects, thus limiting general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Future studies should aim to identify factors associated with achieving consistent and more pronounced benefits over open flap debridement.