<div class="description">
<p>Periodontal Root Resection in the Age of Dental Implants: A Dying Art?<br>Lieutenant Commander Keith R. Merchant, DC, USN and Commander Matthew Miller, DC, USN<br><br>Introduction<br>Periodontal root resection procedures date back to the 19th century when Farrar first described resection as a “radical and heroic” measure to be used only “as a last resort” to salvage a compromised molar. As the technique matured and became part of main-stream therapy, specific indications for root resection evolved: severe localized bone loss, difficult maintenance of severe furcation invasion, non-restorable furcal caries, localized severe bone loss around fixed prostheses, root fractures, and endodontic complications. The advent of dental implantology in the 1980’s marked a paradigm shift in treatment planning for the dental profession as a whole. With preservation of the natural dentition as a core founding principle, the dental profession is compelled to consider tooth extraction as a last resort. However, increased pa-tient demand for implants, intensive marketing by implant manufacturers, enhanced predictability of implants and dwindling familiarity with root resection protocols have all contributed to the decline in popularity of resective procedures in favor of extraction and dental implant placement. A critical assessment of factors associated with success for both implants and resective approaches reveals a fascinatingly similar theme. Therefore, while a dental implant may be the most alluring choice for treating a compromised molar, proven classical approaches such as root resection deserve fair consideration. A comparative review of both therapeutic modalities is hereby warranted in order to provide clinicians with knowledge that may be beneficial in their treatment planning endeavors.
</p>
<br>Subjects: Apicoectomy; Dental Implants</div>
<div class="fn value">
U.S. Navy. Naval Postgraduate Dental School</div>
Internet Archive identifier