Endodontics, Endodontic Retreatment, and Apical Surgery Versus Tooth Extraction and Implant Placement: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following clinical question: Which is the best treatment option for a pulpally involved tooth? METHODS An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane, PubMed (MEDLINE), and ScienceDirect databases between December 2015 and February 2016. A manual search was also performed. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies performed on humans with at least 1 year of follow-up and published within the last 10 years. Two researchers independently screened the title and abstract of every article identified in the search in order to establish its eligibility. The selected articles were classified into different levels of evidence by means of the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy criteria. RESULTS Sixty articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The survival rate of single-tooth implants was greater than the success rate of the distinct conservative treatments. However, among comparative studies, no important differences between both treatments were observed until at least 8 years later. CONCLUSIONS The endodontic treatment and the implant placement are both valid and complementary options for planning oral rehabilitation. Although a level B recommendation can be stated, these results come from retrospective comparative studies because there is a lack of randomized clinical studies comparing both types of therapeutic options.