E-ISSN 2548-0839
Volume : 10 Issue : 6 Year : 2025

Metrics

2.0
2024 IMPACT FACTOR
2.5
5 year Impact Factor
0.00069
Eigenfactor Score
3.2
2024 CiteScore
72/162
Journal Citation Reports
(Clarivate 2025, JIF Rank)
Quartile Q2
Periapical Healing Following Root Canal Treatment with Narrow (0.04) Or Wide (0.07) Preparation Tapers in Private Practice: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study [Eur Endod J]
Eur Endod J. 2025; 10(6): 496-505 | DOI: 10.14744/eej.2025.09821

Periapical Healing Following Root Canal Treatment with Narrow (0.04) Or Wide (0.07) Preparation Tapers in Private Practice: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

Luis Miguel Ferrández1, John Spencer Rhodes1, Sarjoo Shantilal Mistry2, Dipti Mehta3, Yuan-ling Ng4
1The Endodontic Practice, Poole, United Kingdom
2The Endodontic Centre, Maidenhead, United Kingdom
3The Chequers Endodontic Practice, Prestwood, United Kingdom
4Unit of Endodontology, Division of Restorative Dental Science, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom

Objective: The optimal root canal preparation taper remains a subject of debate; smaller sizes putatively favoring fracture resistance and larger, better disinfection. This study evaluated the periapical healing outcome following narrow (0.04) tapered root canal preparation compared with wider tapered preparations (0.07) during non-surgical root canal treatment (NSRCT).
Methods: Clinical and radiographic records of NSRCT completed by a single operator in an endodontic specialist practice were retrospectively reviewed. Two-hundred-and-eighty-nine teeth prepared with either a 0.04 (n=157) or 0.07 (n=132) taper, as guided by pre-operative canal size, met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed for 2 years. Loose (healed and healing) criteria was used to determine the outcome of periapical healing. Logistic regression and stratified outcome analyses were used to investigate the effect of taper and other covariates on periapical healing; the covariates analysed were sex, age, tooth type, size of radiolucency, sinus tract, periodontal defects, cracks, mishaps, number of visits, patency, quality of root filling, quality of restoration, and access cavity design—traditional or non-traditional/minimally invasive. Potential confounders were addressed using a multivariable model (odds ratios [ORs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]; p<0.05).
Results: The periapical healing rates of teeth treated with 0.04 (95.5%) and 0.07 (93.9%) tapers were comparable (p=0.5). The presence of iatrogenic errors (n=8) had a significant negative effect on the success rate (p=0.03).
Conclusion: In this cohort study, comparable healing rates were observed between 0.04 tapered canal preparations and wider (0.07) tapers in teeth with narrow canals. (EEJ-2025-06-094)

Keywords: Conservative root canal preparation, endodontic access cavity, endodontic outcome, minimally invasive access, periapical healing, preparation taper, root canal disinfection


Corresponding Author: Luis Miguel Ferrández
Manuscript Language: English
×
APA
NLM
AMA
MLA
Chicago
Copied!
CITE
 (6 accesses)
 (198 downloaded)
LookUs & Online Makale