Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: A prospective 10-year study. Clinical management of nonhealing periradicular pathosis. Surgery versus endodontic retreatment. Nonsurgical treatment of moderate and advanced periimplantitis lesions: a controlled clinical study.
A cohort of 100 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, characterized in a previous article, were given surgical or conservative treatment and followed for 10 years.
                To identify the short- and long-term results after surgical and conservative treatment, and to determine whether clinical or radiologic predictors for the treatment result can be defined.
                Surgical decompression has been considered the rational treatment. However, clinical experience indicates that many patients do well with conservative treatment.
                In this study, 19 patients with severe symptoms were selected for surgical treatment and 50 patients with moderate symptoms for conservative treatment, whereas 31 patients were randomized between the conservative (n = 18) and surgical (n = 13) treatment groups. Pain was decisive for the choice of treatment group. All patients were observed for 10 years by clinical evaluation and questionnaires. The results, evaluated by patient and physician, were rated as excellent, fair, unchanged, or worse.
                After a period of 3 months, relief of pain had occurred in most patients. Some had relief earlier, whereas for others it took 1 year. After a period of 4 years, excellent or fair results were found in half of the patients selected for conservative treatment, and in four fifths of the patients selected for surgery. Patients with an unsatisfactory result from conservative treatment were offered delayed surgery after 3 to 27 months (median, 3.5 months). The treatment result of delayed surgery was essentially similar to that of the initial group. The treatment result for the patients randomized for surgical treatment was considerably better than for the patients randomized for conservative treatment. Clinically significant deterioration of symptoms during the final 6 years of the follow-up period was not observed. Patients with multilevel afflictions, surgically treated or not, did not have a poorer outcome than those with single-level afflictions. Clinical or radiologic predictors for the final outcome were not found. There were no dropouts, except for 14 deaths.
                The outcome was most favorable for surgical treatment. However, an initial conservative approach seems advisable for many patients because those with an unsatisfactory result can be treated surgically later with a good outcome. This prospective randomized study compared the outcome of retreatment and surgical intervention in root canal treated teeth with nonhealing periradicular pathosis.
                One such tooth from each of 38 patients was randomly allotted to retreatment or root-end resection and root-end filling. Treatment outcome after 1 year was evaluated and compared clinically and radiographically.
                The success rate for surgery was higher than for conventional retreatment, but the difference was not statistically significant.
                For management of nonhealing periradicular pathosis associated with root canal treated teeth, surgical intervention should be considered as an alternative to retreatment. In cases with a similar prognosis for both modes of treatment, the choice should be governed by consideration of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The aim of this controlled, parallel design clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Er:YAG (erbium-doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet) laser for nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis lesions. Twenty patients, each of whom displayed at least one implant with (a) moderate and (b) advanced periimplantitis (n=40 implants; IMZ, ITI, Spline Twist, ZL-Duraplant, Camlog), were randomly instrumented nonsurgically using either (1) an Er:YAG laser (100 mJ/pulse, 10 Hz) device (LAS) or (2) mechanical debridement using plastic curettes and antiseptic therapy with chlorhexidine digluconate (0.2%) (C). The following clinical parameters were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment: plaque index, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth, gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL). Mean BOP improved significantly in both groups at 3, 6, and 12 months (a- lesions: P<0.001 and b- lesions: P<0.01, respectively). After 3 and 6 months, the mean reduction of BOP was significantly higher in the LAS group when compared to the C group (a- and b- lesions: P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively). At 3 and 6 months, both groups revealed significant CAL gains at a- and b- lesions (P<0.01, respectively). In both groups, however, the mean CAL at a- and b- lesions was not significantly different from the respective baseline values at 12 months (P>0.05, respectively). Although treatment of periimplantitis lesions with LAS resulted in a significantly higher BOP reduction than C, its effectiveness seemed to be limited to a period of 6 months, particularly at b- lesions.
The finding that healing rates can be higher for cases treated surgically as compared to those treated non-surgically, at least in the short term, is based on two RCTs only. A single RCT reported that in the medium to long term healing rates for the two procedures are very similar. There is currently scarce evidence for a sound decision making process among alternative treatments for the re-treatment of a periradicular pathosis. More well-designed RCTs should be performed with follow up of at least 4 years, and with a consistent sample size, to detect a true difference in the long term between the outcomes of the two alternative treatments, if any exist.