Search

Background/purpose: Chronic fatigue root fracture describes a root fracture in a non-root canal treated (non-RCT) tooth. This study aimed to report the incidence and contributing factors of non-RCT teeth with chronic fatigue root fracture in a Taiwanese population. Methods: This cross-sectional study included teeth extracted at Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan between 2018 and 2019. The reasons for extractions were recorded and included vertical and horizontal root fractures (VRF and HRF). Comparisons of clinical factors between teeth with fatigue VRF and teeth with fatigue HRF were performed by chi-square or Fisher exact test, where appropriate. Results: Of the 4207 extracted teeth examined, 263 (6.25%) had tooth fracture. Thirty-two non-RCT teeth had chronic fatigue root fracture, including 16 with VRF and 16 with HRF. The incidence was 0.76% (32/4207). The occurrence of chronic fatigue root fracture was higher in males (83.9%). The mean age of the 31 patients with chronic fatigue root fracture was 71.7 ± 13.1 years. More than half of these teeth had intact crowns with severe attrition. The fatigue VRF occurred more frequently in molars (P = 0.003), in roots with a long oval cross-section (P = 0.037), and in terminal teeth (P = 0.013) than the fatigue HRF. Conclusion: The incidence of chronic fatigue root fracture is 0.76%. Both VRF and HRF occur mainly in aged males, in posterior teeth with attrition, and in teeth without restoration. Tooth position, cross-section root morphology, and terminal tooth are contributing factors related to chronic fatigue root fracture.

Introduction: Vertical root fracture (VRF) is a root-canal treatment complication and is a major reason for extraction of the root-canal-treated teeth. The diagnosis of VRF can be complicated because of absence of specific signs, symptoms, and radiographic features. A combination that includes the presence of deep pocket and a sinus tract in root-canal-treated tooth was proposed as a pathognomonic for VRF. The purpose of this study was to systematically search and evaluate the literature regarding the correlation between the clinical signs considered pathognomonic for the diagnosis of VRF, with the actual reference standard by means of systematic review of the literature. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify studies evaluating the clinical signs considered pathognomonic for the diagnosis of VRF. The following databases were searched: Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane Central. The identified studies were subjected to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: Initially, 1141 possible relevant articles were identified. After title and abstract screening, 40 articles were subjected to a full-text evaluation, 3 articles met the inclusion criteria and contained data regarding the prevalence of the pathognomonic combination in VRF’s-confirmed teeth. The presence of deep pocket and a sinus tract in endodontically treated teeth was found in 28% of the cases. Conclusion: To date, the current scientific knowledge regarding the correlation between the clinical symptoms considered pathognomonic for VRF diagnosis in the root-canal-treated tooth and the actual reference standard is quite low.