Endodontics Review: A Study Guide

ENDODONTICS
REVIEW ^{A STUDY GUIDE}

Brooke Blicher, DMD

Private Practice Limited to Endodontics
White River Junction, Vermont

Clinical Instructor, Department of Restorative
Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences
Harvard School of Dental Medicine
Boston, Massachusetts

Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Endodontics
Tufts University School of Dental Medicine
Boston, Massachusetts

Instructor in Surgery
Dartmouth Medical School
Hanover, New Hampshire

Rebekah Lucier Pryles, DMD

Private Practice Limited to Endodontics
White River Junction, Vermont

Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Endodontics
Tufts University School of Dental Medicine
Boston, Massachusetts

Jarshen Lin, DDS

Director of Predoctoral Endodontics
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Science
Harvard School of Dental Medicine

Clinical Associate, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Blicher, Brooke, author. | Lucier Pryles, Rebekah, author. | Lin, Jarshen, author.

Title: Endodontics review : a study guide / Brooke Blicher, Rebekah

Lucier Pryles, Jarshen Lin.

Description: Hanover Park, IL : Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., [2016] | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016003847 (print) | LCCN 2016004668 (ebook) | ISBN 9780867156966 (soft cover) | ISBN 9780867157338 () | eISBN 9780867157338

Subjects: | MESH: Endodontics--methods | Periodontal Diseases | Dental Pulp Diseases | Review

Classification: LCC RK351 (print) | LCC RK351 (ebook) | NLM WU 230 | DDC 617.6/342--dc23

LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016003847

©2016 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
4350 Chandler Drive
Hanover Park, IL 60133
www.quintpub.com

5 4 3 2 1

All rights reserved. This book or any part thereof may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.

Editor: Bryn Grisham
Design: Ted Pereda
Production: Angelina Sanchez

Preface

  1  Evidence-Based Dentistry

  2  Microbiology

  3  Pulpal and Periapical Anatomy and Physiology

  4  Pulpal and Periapical Pathology

  5  Medicine and Pharmacology

  6  Diagnosis

  7  Diagnosis of Non-Endodontic Disease Entities

  8  Treatment of Endodontic Disease

  9  Traumatic Dental Injuries

10  Resorption

11  Prognosis

12  Complications

Congratulations on taking the important leap toward board certification through the American Board of Endodontics (ABE). Although challenging, the path ahead is fair and rewarding, and achieving diplomate status inevitably results in improved clinical skills. For information regarding specific portions of the ABE examination, please refer to www.aae.org/board.

This text provides a comprehensive guide for both the written and oral portions of the ABE examination. Chapters are organized according to the oral examination structure, including the basic sciences, medicine, diagnosis, treatment protocols, prognosis, and complications. Given their relative complexity, the subjects of trauma and resorption are presented individually and include their own unique diagnosis and treatment protocols.

Consultation of textbooks like this one provides an important framework in preparing for the ABE examination; however, other resources are necessary for preparation. This text therefore contains several references to other textbooks considered useful in examination preparation.

Citation of specific references is essential during the written and oral portions of the ABE examination, including a vast body of endodontic literature dating back nearly a century. Throughout the text, frequent references are made to primary resources, as depth of knowledge and overall comprehension of endodontics obtained by reading such references is irreplaceable and cannot be acquired through short cuts.

Knowledge of the most up-to-date endodontic literature, American Association of Endodontics position statements, and presentations at international conferences all contribute to the examination. Readers are encouraged to pay close attention to all literature preceding their examination, including information disseminated after publication of this textbook.

In its quest to certify endodontists with the highest levels of knowledge, the American Board of Endodontics (ABE) examination process focuses on the practice of evidence-based dentistry, wherein the provider makes treatment decisions based on a comprehensive and constantly evolving evaluation of the bodies of research and literature in their field. Practitioners must sift through the available resources with a discerning eye.

In each section of the ABE examination, candidates must demonstrate their ability to justify their decisions and recommendations based on the highest-quality evidence available. Research published in peer-reviewed journals is considered to be unbiased and therefore most useful. Although textbooks and lectures are effective means of disseminating information, quality versions of these resources will refer back to primary resources in peer-reviewed journals. Consequently, it is imperative that providers familiarize themselves with the primary references cited in all examples. This chapter will cover study design, measures of statistical significance and validity, and epidemiology. For a more in-depth review of research design and biostatistics, please refer to Hulley et al’s Designing Clinical Research or Glaser’s High-Yield Biostatistics.

Study Design

Beyond citing peer-reviewed journals as the ideal reference source, certain study designs are generally considered more scientifically sound. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) outlines a hierarchy of levels of evidence by study design, illustrated in Fig 1-1.

Fig 1-1 OCEBM hierarchy of levels of evidence by study design.

Systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, are considered the highest level of evidence, and their quality improves based on the compiled levels of evidence of the studies reviewed. Systematic reviews involve a comprehensive search and review of all of the literature on a topic, and a meta-analysis delves deeper by doing statistical analyses to make direct comparisons between studies. Depending on the variability of the statistics reported in the literature available on a topic, a meta-analysis may not be achievable. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are limited by the quality of the studies included, and the following discussion of levels of evidence should be taken into account in evaluation of the quality of literature reviews.

Looking next to clinical research studies, randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence (OCEBM). Randomized controlled trials involve a planned intervention on a diseased population with matched controls. These studies are both resource- and time-intensive and are consequently difficult to perform. Futhermore, ethical concerns often arise in the discussion of this study type. Prior knowledge of superior intervention outcomes cannot be denied from a diseased population, and it is considered unethical to study certain populations, such as children or the disabled.

Cohort studies are considered next best among the levels of evidence hierarchy (OCEBM). Cohort studies are prospective and longitudinal and measure for the incidence of new cases of a disease while assessing risk or protective factors. These types of studies can be resource intensive and are not practical for rare outcomes.

Case-control studies follow cohort studies in the OCEBM hierarchy. This type of study compares past risk factors and exposures of cases with disease and controls without disease in a retrospective fashion. These studies are often less expensive to perform and less time intensive and can be useful to study rare outcomes. They are considered lower quality due to recall bias, difficulties with misdiagnosis, and assignment of controls.

Publications of case series or case reports represent the lowest level of evidence for observational studies (OCEBM). They involve a simple presentation of an outcome without provision of a control.

Lastly, expert opinions offer the lowest level of evidence. Their utility is limited in the justification of evidence-based diagnosis and treatment. Rather, they serve to introduce innovation and new techniques as clinical empiricism is oftentimes the starting point for further higher-level research.

Statistics

Although a comprehensive review of biostatistics will not be addressed in this textbook, a review of the more commonly encountered concepts in biostatistics, particularly those encountered in later parts of this text, will be presented. Readers are encouraged to seek out further resources, particularly if questions arise during the reading of primary references.

Measures of statistical significance

The ultimate goal of research is to test a hypothesis. Although absolute statements regarding proof or disproof of a hypothesis cannot be made based on limited populations and study parameters, researchers look to determine the likelihood that results support the hypothesis. Similarly, determination of cause and effect is extremely difficult to prove, requiring large-scale randomized controlled trials with longitudinal follow-ups. Most studies fall short of determining causation but can identify associations or relationships between two factors. It is important in quoting literature to never overstate results.

One way researchers can increase the odds of obtaining statistically significant results is to ensure that the sample population under study is both large and diverse enough to demonstrate outcomes. Although successful completion of the ABE examination does not require an intimate understanding of the methods researchers use to determine the adequacy of sample sizes, familiarity with the concept of power to rule out errors in hypothesis testing is imperative. Well-designed research studies involve power calculations to assure adequate sample sizes, and in critical review of literature articles, one should note if appropriate power calculations were made to justify the use of a particular sample size.

With samples selected and the experiment performed, results must be analyzed to determine their statistical relevance. The most common measure of statistical significance encountered in the endodontic literature is the P value. The P value refers to the likelihood of the outcome having occurred by chance. A P value less than or equal to .05 generally indicates statistical significance (Fig 1-2). In other words, with a P value of less than .05, the probability that the study results were obtained by chance is less than 5%. For example, in a retrospective case-control study performed by Spili et al investigating the outcomes of teeth with and without fractured nickel-titanium instruments, 91.8% success was found in cases with retained fractured instruments compared with 94.5% success in controls. Statistical analysis using the Fisher exact test, a tool used to determine deviation from a null hypothesis, resulted in a P value of .49. This corresponds to a 49% chance that the difference in healing rates was due to chance. As the authors set the significance value at P = .05, the difference in healing rates obtained from the study was deemed statistically insignificant.

Fig 1-2 The relationship between P value and statistical significance. The P value describes the probability that results occurred by chance.

Measures of validity

When new testing modalities are compared to the current standard, the validity or accuracy of the new approach must be verified. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values provide the means by which validity can be confirmed (Fig 1-3). These values are often encountered in descriptions of pulp sensitivity tests. Jespersen et al’s study on the validity of cold sensitivity testing using Endo Ice [Hygenic] provides an excellent example in the discussion of validity measures.

Fig 1-3 The validity measures often encountered in the endodontic literature.

Understanding validity measures requires familiarity with the concepts of both true positive and negative results and false positive and negative results (Table 1-1). True positive or negative results correctly identify individuals as healthy or diseased. False positive or negative results incorrectly identify the individual’s disease status.

Table 1-1 The possible outcomes of a test

Sensitivity is defined as the ability of a test to detect diseased individuals. It is calculated by comparing the number of true positives detected by the test with the total number of diseased subjects, including the true positives plus false negatives. In Jespersen’s study, the sensitivity was 0.92 for cold testing. In other words, 92% of teeth with pulpal necrosis were correctly identified.

Specificity is defined as the ability of a test to correctly identify a healthy individual. It is calculated by comparing the number of true negatives detected by the test with the total number of nondiseased subjects, including the true negatives and false positives. In Jespersen’s study, the specificity was 0.90 for cold testing. In other words, the cold test correctly identified vital teeth 90% of the time.

Predictive values describe the likelihood of the test to correctly identify health or disease. The positive predictive value is calculated as the proportion of true positives compared with positive results. The negative predictive value is calculated as the proportion of true negatives compared with negative results. Jespersen reported a positive predictive value of 0.86 and a negative predictive value of 0.94 for cold testing. In other words, 86% of positive results indicated pulpal necrosis, and 94% of negative results indicated the presence of vital pulp tissue.

Epidemiology

Epidemiology involves the study of health and disease in populations. Descriptive statistics are used in epidemiology to determine the impact of health or disease measures on the population under study. Commonly reported descriptive statistics include both prevalence and incidence (Fig 1-4). Prevalence refers to the total number of people affected by a disease at a particular time point. Incidence refers to the number of new disease cases arising during a defined period of time.

Fig 1-4 Descriptive statistics often encountered in the endodontic literature.

For example, Eriksen et al reviewed several European studies that reported the prevalence of apical periodontitis with a range from 26% to 70%. These results indicate that screening via periapical radiographs found that between 26% and 70% of patients sampled had apical periodontitis at a particular time point. An additional example is found in a study by Lipton et al, which reported a 12% incidence of toothache in the United States population in the preceding 6 months. Prevalence is a good measure for apical periodontitis since it develops slowly over a long time period, wherein it might be difficult to truly detect new cases. Incidence is a better measure for toothache since they generally have a rapid onset and decline, so a point in time assessment might miss many cases.

Prognosis

Success rates of therapy are frequently utilized to justify treatment choices. Chapter 11 presents an in-depth discussion of endodontic success rates. Success can have multiple definitions depending on the text, and it is important to understand how each study defines success. Oftentimes, a distinction can be made between success, defined as the absence of symptoms and radiographic periapical pathology, and survival, referring to the absolute presence or absence of the tooth in the mouth without consideration of symptoms or pathology. When examining primary sources, it is important to understand the authors’ definition of success as results will vary accordingly. Furthermore, the advent of newer imaging modalities like cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) may alter our future definitions. Wu et al suggested that the lines between success and survival may be blurred once prognosis studies utilizing CBCT imaging become available because CBCT images will inevitably detect more lesions than traditional radiography.

Bibliography

Introduction

Glaser AN. High-Yield Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Public Health, ed 4. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.

Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing Clinical Research, ed 4. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013.

Study Design

Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. OCEBM Levels of Evidence. http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/. Accessed 6 January 2016

Statistics

Jespersen JJ, Hellstein J, Williamson A, Johnson WT, Qian F. Evaluation of dental pulp sensibility tests in a clinical setting. J Endod 2014;40:351–354.

Spili P, Parashos P, Messer HH. The impact of instrument fracture on outcome of endodontic treatment. J Endod 2005;31:845–850.

Epidemiology

Eriksen H, Kirkevang L, Petersson K. Endodontics epidemiology and treatment outcome: General considerations. Endod Topics 2002;2:1–9.

Lipton JA, Ship JA, Larach-Robinson D. Estimated prevalence and distribution of reported orofacial pain in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:115–121.

Prognosis

Wu MK, Shemesh H, Wesselink PR. Limitations of previously published systematic reviews evaluating the outcome of endodontic treatment. Int Endod J 2009;42:656–666.

Endodontic pathology results from interactions between microbes and host immune responses. The seminal work of Kakehashi et al on germ-free rats illustrated the role of bacteria as a major etiologic force in the progression of pulpal inflammation to apical periodontitis (Fig 2-1). In their study, gnotobiotic, or germ-free, rats did not develop apical periodontitis following pulpal exposures, whereas conventional rats with normal oral flora rapidly developed apical pathology. Moller et al and Sundqvist noted similar results in their work with monkeys and humans, respectively. Both found bacteria in necrotic pulps with apical periodontitis but not in necrotic pulps without apical disease.

Fig 2-1 The relationship between pulp necrosis, bacteria, and the development of apical periodontitis. Bacteria are essential for progression of pulpal necrosis to apical periodontitis.

This chapter covers historically significant events in endodontic microbiology, research methods for microbial analysis, and commonly encountered microbes in endodontic infections. A review of biofilm biology is also presented, and the chapter concludes with a discussion of pathways of microbial spread.

History of Endodontic Microbiology

One cannot study endodontic microbiology without understanding the complicated history of the focal infection theory. This theory dates back to medical literature of the 19th century and asserts that localized or generalized infection can result from dissemination of bacteria and toxic byproducts from a focus of infection. Weston Price brought the theory to endodontics in 1925 when he inferred that bacteria trapped in dentinal tubules after root canal therapy could “leak” from the root canal space and cause systemic disease. He strongly advocated extraction of all diseased teeth. In 1952, Easlick pointed out the fallacies in Price’s research methods, including the inadequate use of controls, large amounts of bacteria in the cases presented, and contamination of root canal–treated teeth studied during extraction. Doing so, he effectively refuted the associations between endodontically treated teeth and systemic disease. The work of Fish also refuted Price’s claims. Fish described the encapsulation of infections into the so-called “Zones of Fish”: the zones of infection, contamination, irritation, and stimulation extending outward concentrically (Fig 2-2). If the nidus of infection is removed, the body can recover, providing a basis for the success of root canal therapy.

Fig 2-2 The Zones of Fish describe a means of infection containment.

Research Methods

With the advent of new research methods, the understanding of endodontic microbiology has changed. Culture methods have been available for many years but have several limitations. Certain species are unable to grow outside of physiologic conditions, and it is difficult to take a truly anaerobic sample for growth in culture. The advent of molecular techniques facilitated the detection of uncultivable species. These techniques include polymerase chain reactions (PCR), fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and DNA checkerboard analysis. PCR amplifies DNA, which can subsequently be sequenced to identify the presence of known and novel species. Variants of DNA techniques, such as FISH and DNA checkerboard analysis, allow detection of vast libraries of known species. Molecular techniques are also useful in the detection of nonbacterial infection sources. They can be used to identify the DNA from fungal infections, including candida, and viruses, including viruses in the herpes family.

Though molecular techniques offer superior species detection, some utility remains in classical microbiology laboratory techniques, including gram staining. Gram-positive bacteria are labeled as such due to the affinity of the crystal violet dye for their thick peptidoglycan cell walls. Gram-positive bacteria include those in the Streptococcus, Peptostreptococcus, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Eubacterium, and Actinomyces genera. Gram-negative bacteria have a lesser affinity for the crystal violet stain due to the presence of a cell wall containing lipopolysaccharide (LPS), often referred to as endotoxin. LPS is important in the progression of pulpal and periapical inflammation. Dwyer and Torabinejad found that it stimulates cytokine production by macrophages (Fig 2-3). Gram-negative bacteria include those in the Fusobacterium, Treponema, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Tannerella, Dialister, Campylobacter, and Veillonella genera.

Fig 2-3 Endotoxin (ie, LPS) is the key component inducing an inflammatory response in pulpal and periapical disease (Dwyer and Torabinejad).

Endodontic Infections

Not all oral microbes are pathogenic. Our bodies host a vast, complex, and symbiotic microbiome. Most simply, this microbiome maintains an important equilibrium that serves to exclude pathogenic or opportunistic bacteria from invasion. While a large amount of the human body is colonized by bacteria, the dental pulp and associated periapical tissues are normally sterile spaces. When the body’s physiologic microbiome is interrupted, or pathogenic microbes enter normally sterile tissues such as the dental pulp, the balance shifts, and pathogenic infection can occur.

Some degree of protective barrier interruption must occur for bacterial contamination of the pulp and periapex, and theories abound. Caries and direct exposure via fracture are the most obvious means for microbial contamination of the dental pulp. However, endodontic pathology may have alternative origins, such as traumatic injuries without direct pulpal exposures. Bergenholtz proposed that microcracks caused by traumatic injuries allow ingress of bacteria to infect an already compromised, inflamed pulp. Gier and Mitchell proposed anachoresis—the homing of bacteria to traumatized, unexposed pulps—as another means of infection. However, work by Delivanis et al effectively disproved this. Figure 2-4 illustrates the theorized means of bacterial introduction to the dental pulp.

Fig 2-4 Theorized means of bacterial introduction to dental pulp.

Regardless of the means of pulp inoculation, endodontic infections are polymicrobial. Both culture-based and molecular methods confirm this finding. Molecular research has provided greater understanding of the complex microbial communities present in endodontic infections. These communities often exist in the form of biofilms. Donlan and Costerton defined biofilms as microbial-derived, sessile communities characterized by cells irreversibly attached to a substratum or interface or to one other, embedded in a self-produced matrix of extracellular polymeric substances, and exhibiting an altered phenotype with respect to growth rate and gene transcription compared with their planktonic counterparts.

Svensater and Bergenholtz described several qualities unique to biofilms including metabolic diversity, concentration gradients, genetic exchange, and quorum sensing (Fig 2-5). Bacterial biofilms are metabolically diverse, allowing a sharing of nutritional sources and waste products and resulting in greater overall survival. The concentration gradient created by the mere density of the biofilm community allows for greater physical and chemical resistance to antimicrobials and immune responses. Genetic exchange by the microbiota in close proximity allows for sharing of favorable virulence factors. Quorum sensing serves as a communication method among the microbial community and permits the members to act as a group and increase the effectiveness of their actions. For example, quorum sensing allows the release of virulence factors as a group.

Fig 2-5 The qualities often attributed to biofilms (Svensater and Bergenholtz).

While historically abscesses were thought to be sterile (Shindell), current research supports the validity of extraradicular infections. Tronstad et al performed one of the first culture studies demonstrating the presence of bacteria, particularly anaerobes, in extraradicular infections. Sunde et al (2000) confirmed these findings using molecular techniques and noted the presence of certain species in periapical infections, in particular Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Tannerella forsythia. Haapasalo et al cultured anaerobic bacteria in sinus tracts, and Sassone et al reported a higher prevalence of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum when a sinus tract was present. Sabeti and Slots reported the presence of human cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus in apical periodontitis.

Most, though not all, teeth exhibiting pulpal necrosis are infected. In the absence of infection, Andreasen demonstrated that periapical healing could occur despite pulpal necrosis in traumatically luxated teeth without bacterial contamination. Wittgow and Sabiston found that 64% of teeth with pulpal necrosis were infected, and Bergenholtz found that teeth with pulpal necrosis and periapical lesions were more often infected.

Typically isolated species

Endodontic infections are comprised of frequently isolated species, and these are repeatedly noted in the literature. These include both facultative and obligate anaerobes, including members of the Strepotococcus, Enterococcus, Prevotella, and Porphyromonas species (Fig 2-6). With further development of microbial techniques, the diverse nature of these so-called typical species has become more apparent. Furthermore, these species may exhibit some geographic variation, as Baumgartner et al (2004) found different profiles of infections in Brazilian populations versus those from the United States.

Fig 2-6 Common isolates in endodontic infections.

Streptococci are gram-positive, generally facultative anaerobic bacteria. They are classified as either alpha or beta based on their reaction with hemoglobin molecules on blood agar in a laboratory. Winkler and Van Amerongen reported that beta-hemolytic streptococci, particularly those further classified into groups F, G, C, and minorly D, were common isolates in endodontic infections. He further reported a lesser presence of Streptococcus mitis, an alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus in the viridans group.

Enterococcus faecalis is a gram-positive facultative anaerobe formerly classified as a member of group D beta-hemolytic streptococci. It is of particular interest due to its antimicrobial resistance. E faecalis possesses a proton pump that allows it to adapt to harsh environments (Evans et al). This proton pump is theorized to contribute to E faecalis’ unique resistance to calcium hydroxide (Bystrom et al), an intracanal medicament known for its effectiveness against most known endodontic pathogens. Presumably, the proton pump prevents the ionization calcium hydroxide requires for effectiveness. E faecalis also possesses the ability to survive for long periods of time in dentinal tubules without nutrients (Love). Lastly, Distel et al found that this microbe could form biofilms. Interestingly, Penas et al reported lesser antimicrobial resistance in oral as compared to nosocomial E faecalis infections. The properties of E faecalis proposed to increase its resistance to eradication are summarized in Fig 2-7.

Fig 2-7 Properties attributed to E faecalis that increase its resistance to endodontic procedures and make it a common isolate in persistent endodontic infections.

Classic endodontic literature frequently described “black pigmented bacteroides” as common isolates in endodontic infections. In the 1980s, microbiologists recognized that this group comprised a relatively heterogenous group of bacteria and further split the genus of Bacteroides into Prevotella and Porphyromonas (Fig 2-8). Though both groups are gram-negative and obligate anaerobes, they are differentiated by their abilities to ferment carbohydrates. Shah and Collins described Prevotella as saccharolytic, or able to ferment carbohydrates, whereas Love et al labeled Porphyromonas as asaccharolytic. An easy way to remember these is to pair the “as” ending of Porphyromonas with the first two letters of asaccharolytic. Bae et al reported that Prevotella nigrescens was the most common isolate from endodontic infections of those previously categorized as Bacteroides. Gomes et al reported that Prevotella melaninogenica was commonly associated with painful infections.

Fig 2-8 Reclassification of prior black-pigmented Bacteroides by carbohydrate fermentation properties.

Atypical species

Although modern research techniques challenge the knowledge of the typical makeup of endodontic infections, certain microbes are less frequently reported in the literature than those discussed in the previous section. These include Actinomyces, spirochetes, fungi, and archaea (Fig 2-9).

Fig 2-9 Less frequently encountered species in endodontic infections.

Actinomyces are gram-positive bacteria that form cohesive colonies often described clinically as “sulfur granules” because of their yellow granular presentation. Sunde et al’s (2002) histologic analysis of these “sulfur granules” noted that they indeed contained large quantities of clumped bacteria. Though isolation of Actinomyces is only rarely reported in the endodontic literature, Nair described difficulties in culturing the organism. Modern research methods, on the other hand, more frequently isolate this genus. Xia and Baumgartner noted Actinomyces israelii, Actinomyces naeslundii, and Actinomyces viscosus in infected root canals and aspirates from associated abscesses and cellulitis. Nair reviewed Actinomyces’ ability to survive and thrive in the periapical area, often called periapical actinomycosis, and cites this entity as a common cause of persistent endodontic infections. Due to its persistence and frequent recurrence with traditional treatments, Jeansonne recommended treating periapical actinomycosis via a surgical approach along with a relatively long, 6-week course of systemic penicillin.

Spirochetes, typically gram-negative, anaerobic bacteria with flagella for motility, are reported isolates in endodontic infections. Because spirochetes are difficult to culture, molecular techniques must often be employed to detect them. Siqueira et al noted Treponema subspecies in endodontic infections. Sakamoto et al identified a variety of Treponema species present in endodontic infections, particulary Treponema denticola, Treponema socranskii, and Treponema maltophilum.

Though less frequently encountered, nonbacterial organisms including archaea, eukaryotes including fungi, and viruses have been reported in endodontic infections. Archaea, also known as extremophiles, are known to be present in hot springs and can be localized to the gastrointestinal and vaginal tracts as well as in periodontal plaque. Vianna et al first reported their presence in endodontic infections. Baumgartner et al (2000) found Candida albicans in primary endodontic infections. Giardino et al reported a case of an Aspergillus fungal infection associated with extruded zinc oxide–based endodontic sealer in the maxillary sinus potentially related to the zinc, an Aspergillus metabolite, present in the sealer.

Prions, infectious agents composed of misfolded proteins that target neurologic tissue, are theorized as potential pathogens in pulp tissue. Smith et al suggested that, should prions be found in pulp tissue, prion infections could be transmitted by sterilized endodontic instruments because traditional autoclave techniques do not eliminate proteinaceous contaminants. However, Azarpazhooh and Fillery performed a systematic review of the literature and found no reports of prions in the dental pulp. This theoretical, but as yet unproven, risk to reusing sterilized instruments that have been in contact with the dental pulp has spurred recommendations by dental manufacturers for the single use of such instruments.

Viruses

Viruses, particularly those in the herpesvirus family, are commonly reported in endodontic infections. Ferreira et al noted herpes simplex virus (HSV) types 1 and 2; human herpesvirus (HHV) types 6, 7, and 8; and varicella zoster virus (VZV) in aspirated samples of acute apical abscesses. Sabeti et al reported the presence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) in periapical lesions, especially larger and symptomatic lesions. Li et al also reported a possible association of EBV with irreversible pulpitis. Recent data indicates that viruses may play an active role in pulpal death. A case report by Goon and Jacobsen described devitalization of the dental pulp associated with a trigeminal VZV infection. Lastly, viruses may play a role in resorptive processes. Von Arx et al reported a potential association between feline herpesvirus and cases of invasive cervical root resorption in both humans and cats.

Nonherpetic viruses have also been described in the endodontic literature. Ferreira et al found human papillomavirus (HPV) in endodontic abscesses. Although human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has not been correlated with the pathogenesis of endodontic disease, Glick et al located it in the dental pulp of individuals with clinical AIDS. Elkins et al found HIV in periradicular lesions of patients known to be carriers of the virus. Figure 2-10 lists a summary of the viruses reported as isolated from endodontic infections.

Fig 2-10 Commonly isolated viruses in endodontic infections.

Bacterial Communities

Endodontic bacterial communities continually adapt to their environment, and their characteristics may alter the clinical characteristics of that particular infection. The periodontal literature recognizes that groups of bacterial species may be more pathogenic than individuals alone. Socransky et al described the red complex including P gingivalis, T denticola, and T forsythia and their association with the severity of periodontitis. Similarly, certain microbial relationships are important in the progression of endodontic disease, namely primary versus secondary infections or acute versus chronic infections.

In general, primary infections, those that occur in untreated necrotic teeth, are believed to involve a greater number of species than secondary infections, ie, reinfections of previously treated teeth. Rôças and Siqueira (2008) reported roughly 20 species in primary infections versus approximately 3 species in secondary infections (Siqueira and Rôças 2004). The techniques used to detect species appear to matter significantly. A recent study by Hong et al using pyrosequencing noted hundreds of bacterial species in primary and secondary infections with no statistically significant differences in diversity among the two.

Figdor and Sundqvist reported differences in the composition of primary versus secondary infections (Fig 2-11). Primary infections consisted of an equal mix of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and contained mostly obligate anaerobes. Fabricius et al described the progression of primary endodontic infections from largely aerobic species to anaerobic species, a process he termed microbial succession. This results from a reduction in oxygen tension in the necrotic pulp tissue due to aerobic metabolism by early colonizers. Secondary infections may differ significantly from their primary counterparts. Figdor and Sundqvist reported that secondary infections contained mostly gram-positive bacteria with a more equal distribution of facultative and obligate anaerobes. Conversely, a recent study by Murad et al reported a higher prevalence of gram-negative than gram-positive species in secondary infections, particularly in the presence of a large periapical lesion.

Fig 2-11 Characteristics of primary versus secondary endodontic infections.

Particular species have been associated with either primary or secondary infections. E faecalis is frequently associated with secondary infections. Rôças et al reported that it was nine times more likely to be present in secondary than primary infection. However, Rôças and Siqueira (2012) call these findings into question in future work, supposing that E faecalis is perhaps more often reported in secondary infections due to its ease of detection with laboratory methods. In a recent study using checkerboard DNA hybridization, Murad et al reported that Enterococcus faecium and Streptococcus epidermidis were the most prevalent species in secondary infections.

This species specificity may apply to other types of infections. For example, Siqueira et al (2004) reported an increased prevalence of Fusobacterium in symptomatic infections. Sassone et al reported an association between T forsythia and painful infections. Gomes et al noted an increased prevalence of peptostreptococci and P melaninogenica with pain. Lastly, Sabeti et al found that EBV and CMV were also associated with painful infections.

Anatomical Distribution of Infections

Endodontic infections originating from the dental pulp can spread via apical tissue into the alveolar bone. Eventually, infections may spread through fascial spaces, the potential spaces between the fascia and the underlying tissues and organs. Depending on the particular location of the infection, endodontic infections tend to take a particular path in their spread into peri-orofacial tissues. These typical pathways may differ based on patient anatomy.

The fascial spaces germane to endodontic infections are described below. For a more complete anatomical reference, please refer to Fehrenbach and Herring’s Illustrated Anatomy of the Head and Neck. Following are descriptions of the defining features of the fascial spaces commonly involved with endodontic infections with credit to Siqueira and Rôças in Cohen’s Pathways of the Pulp.

• Buccal vestibule. Defined by the buccinators and alveolar mucosa. Infections from posterior maxillary teeth with root apices inferior to the buccinator insertion or posterior mandibular teeth with root apices superior to the buccinator insertion may spread to the buccal vestibule.

• Buccal space. Defined by the buccinators and cheek mucosa. Infections from posterior maxillary teeth with root apices superior to the buccinator insertion or posterior mandibular teeth with root apices inferior to the buccinator insertion may spread to the buccal space. Infections in the buccal space can spread to the periorbital space due to its close proximity.

• Pterygomandibular space. Defined by the medial pterygoid and the mandibular ramus inferior to the lateral pterygoid. Infections from mandibular second or third molars often spread to this space.

• Canine space. Located superior to the levator anguli oris muscle and inferior to the levator labii superioris. Infections from maxillary canines and maxillary first premolars with infection breaking through the buccal cortex may spread to this space.

• Periorbital space. Located deep to the orbicularis occuli. Infections from maxillary canines or enlarging buccal space infections may spread to this space.

• Submandibular space. Found superior to the platysma and inferior to the mylohyoid muscle. Infections from mandibular posterior teeth breaking through the lingual cortex may spread to this space. This space is contiguous with the submental space across the digastric muscle.

• Submental space. Found superior to the platysma muscle and inferior to the mylohyoid muscle. Infections from mandibular anterior teeth may spread to this space.

• Mental space. Located below the mentalis muscle. Infections from mandibular anterior teeth may spread to this space.

• Sublingual space. Found superior to the mylohyoid muscle and inferior to the floor of the mouth. Infections from mandibular teeth that break through the lingual cortex may spread to this space. This is a bilateral space without a midline separation.

Infections in individual teeth often follow particular patterns of spread when transitioning from a localized abscess to more generalized swelling (Fig 2-12 and Table 2-1). Infections of maxillary teeth tend to spread to the buccal space or buccal vestibule, although infections of maxillary lateral incisors and palatal roots of first premolars and molars may extend palatally. Maxillary canine and first premolar infections often spread to the canine space or to the periorbital space. Infections of mandibular incisors usually spread to the buccal vestibule, submental, mental, or sublingual spaces. Infections of mandibular premolars or first molars often spread to the buccal space or buccal vestibule but may also spread into the sublingual or submandibular spaces (Siqueira and Rôças). Table 2-1 summarizes common infection pathways in endodontic infections.

Fig 2-12 Typical pathways of infectious spread from maxillary and mandibular molars.

Table 2-1 Typical fascial space spread of periradicular infections^a

^aData from Siqueira and Rôças.

Beyond a more localized abscess characterized by pain and swelling or cellulitis, fascial space infections may have significant medical consequences. Infections of the lateral pharyngeal space, which can develop when an infection from a mandibular second or third molar spreads beyond the pterygomandibular space, can lead to inner jugular thrombosis. Infections involving the submental, sublingual, and submandibular spaces combine to create Ludwig angina, a life-threatening infection characterized by difficulty swallowing, difficulty opening the mouth, and difficulty breathing. Infections of the periorbital space may spread via valveless facial veins with resultant cavernous sinus thrombosis characterized by a lateral gaze palsy. The danger space, defined by the alar and prevertebral fascia, may become involved in severe periradicular infections that spread beyond the lateral pharyngeal space and is so named based on its continuity with the mediastinal cavity (Siqueira and Rôças). All of these are considered medical emergencies requiring prompt intervention at an emergency medical facility.

Bibliography

Introduction

Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1965;20:340–349.

Moller AJ, Fabricius L, Dahlen G, Ohman AE, Heyden G. Influence on periapical tissues of indigenous oral bacteria and necrotic pulp tissue in monkeys. Scand J Dent Res 1981;89:475–484.

Sundqvist G. Bacteriological Studies of Necrotic Dental Pulps [thesis]. Umea, Sweden: University of Umea, 1976.

History of Endodontic Microbiology

Easlick KA. Evaluation of the action of focal dental infections on health. Med Hyg (Geneve) 1952;10:35.

Fish EW. Bone Infection. J Am Dent Assoc 1939;26:691–712.

Price WA. Dental infections and related degenerative diseases: Some structural and biochemical factors. JAMA 1925;84:254–261.

Research Methods

Dwyer TG, Torabinejad M. Radiographic and histologic evaluation of the effect of endotoxin on the periapical tissues of the cat. J Endod 1981;7:31–35.

Endodontic Infections

Andreasen FM. Pulpal healing after luxation injuries and root fracture in the permanent dentition. Endod Dent Traumatol 1989;5:111–131.

Azarpazhooh A, Fillery ED. Prion disease: The implications for dentistry. J Endod 2008;34: 1158–1166.

Bae KS, Baumgartner JC, Shearer TR, David LL. Occurrence of Prevotella nigrescens and 5 in infections of endodontic origin. J Endod 1997;23:620–623.

Baumgartner JC, Siqueira JF Jr, Xia T, Rôças IN. Geographical differences in bacteria detected in endodontic infections using polymerase chain reaction. J Endod 2004;30:141–144.

Baumgartner JC, Watts CM, Xia T. Occurrence of Candida albicans in infections of endodontic origin. J Endod 2000;26:695–698.

Bergenholtz G. Micro-organisms from necrotic pulp of traumatized teeth. Odontol Revy 1974;25:347–358.

Bystrom A, Claesson R, Sundqvist G. The antibacterial effect of camphorated paramonochlorophenol, camphorated phenol and calcium hydroxide in the treatment of infected root canals. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:170–175.

Delivanis PD, Snowden RB, Doyle RJ. Localization of blood-borne bacteria in instrumented unfilled root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981;52:430–432.

Distel JW, Hatton JF, Gillespie MJ. Biofilm formation in medicated root canals. J Endod 2002;28:689–693.

Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: Survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15:167–193.

Elkins DA, Torabinejad M, Schmidt RE, Rossi JJ, Kettering JD. Polymerase chain reaction detection of human immunodeficiency virus DNA in human periradicular lesions. J Endod 1994;20:386–388.

Evans M, Davies JK, Sundqvist G, Figdor D. Mechanisms involved in the resistance of Enterococcus faecalis to calcium hydroxide. Int Endod J 2002;35:221–228.

Ferreira DC, Paiva SS, Carmo FL, et al. Identification of herpesviruses types 1 to 8 and human papillomavirus in acute apical abscesses. J Endod 2011;37:10–16.

Giardino L, Pontieri F, Savoldi E, Tallarigo F. Aspergillus mycetoma of the maxillary sinus secondary to overfilling of a root canal. J Endod 2006;32:692–694.

Gier RE, Mitchell DF. Anachoretic effect of pulpitis. J Dent Res 1968;47:564–570.

Glick M, Trope M, Pliskin ME. Detection of HIV in the dental pulp of a patient with AIDS. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;119:649–650.

Gomes BP, Lilley JD, Drucker DB. Associations of endodontic symptoms and signs with particular combinations of specific bacteria. Int Endod J 1996;29:69–75.

Goon WW, Jacobsen PL. Prodromal odontalgia and multiple devitalized teeth caused by a herpes zoster infection of the trigeminal nerve: Report of case. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116: 500–504.

Haapasalo M, Ranta K, Ranta H. Mixed anaerobic periapical infection with sinus tract. Endod Dent Traumatol 1987;3:83–85.

Jeansonne BG. Periapical actinomycosis: A review. Quintessence Int 2005;36:149–153.

Li H, Chen V, Chen Y, Baumgartner JC, Machida CA. Herpesviruses in endodontic pathoses: Association of Epstein-Barr virus with irreversible pulpitis and apical periodontitis. J Endod 2009;35:23–29.

Love RM. Enterococcus faecalis—A mechanism for its role in endodontic failure. Int Endod J 2001;34:399–405.

Love DN, Bailey GD, Collings S, Briscoe DA. Description of Porphyromonas circumdentaria sp. nov. and reassignment of Bacteroides salivosus (Love, Johnson, Jones, and Calverley 1987) as Porphyromonas (Shah and Collins 1988) salivosa comb. nov. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1992;42: 434–438.

Nair PN. On the causes of persistent apical periodontitis: A review. Int Endod J 2006;39: 249–281.

Penas PP, Mayer MP, Gomes BP, et al. Analysis of genetic lineages and their correlation with virulence genes in Enterococcus faecalis clinical isolates from root canal and systemic infections. J Endod 2013;39:858–864.