The value of assessing case difficulty and its effect on endodontic iatrogenic errors: a retrospective cross-sectional study

Figures & data

Figure 1. The percentage of iatrogenic errors in the high, moderate, and minimal difficulty categories

Figure 2. Percentage of iatrogenic errors in the total number of teeth treated (N = 1000) in each academic year

Table 1. The relation between the presence of iatrogenic errors and tooth type; N (%)

Errors ToothType	Corono-Cervical perforation	Furcation perforation	Strip perforation	Lateral Root perforation	Apical perforation	Ledge	Fractured instrument	Overfilling	Underfilling	Total
Upper Anteriors	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	5 (2.3%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	2 (0.9%)	10 (4.5%)
Upper Premolars	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.4%)	7 (3%)	4 (2%)	2 (0.9%)	12 (5.5%)	29 (13%)
Upper Molars	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	13 (6%)	8 (3.6%)	11 (5%)	23 (10.5%)	58 (26%)
Lower Anteriors	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	5 (2.3%)	1 (0.5%)	9 (4%)
Lower Premolars	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	1 (0.5%)	3 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	6 (2.7%)	13 (6%)
Lower Molars	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	1 (0.5%)	5 (2.3%)	4 (2%)	13 (6%)	18 (8%)	20 (9%)	40 (18%)	102 (46%)
Total	1 (0.5%)	2 (0.9%)	3 (1.4%)	7 (3%)	12 (5.5%)	42 (19%)	30 (13.5%)	40 (18%)	84 (38%)	221 (100%)
p	0.020 *

*Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05

Table 2. The relation between the presence of iatrogenic errors and root type; N (%)

Errors Root Type	Corono-cervical perforation	Furcation perforation	Strip perforation	Lateral Root perforation	Apical perforation	Ledge	Fractured instrument	Overfilling	Underfilling	Total
Buccal	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)	2 (0.9%)	5 (2.3%)	16 (7.2%)	1 (0.5%)	8 (3.6%)	12 (5.5%)	47 (21%)
Palatal/ lingual	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	3 (1.4%)	1 (0.5%)	4 (2%)	4 (2%)	12 (5.5%)	25 (11%)
Mesial	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)
Distal	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)	9 (4%)	6 (2.7%)	19 (8.5%)
Mesio- Buccal	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	1 (0.5%)	9 (4%)	12 (5.5%)	9 (4%)	26 (11.7%)	58 (26%)
Mesio- Lingual	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	4 (2%)	1 (0.5%)	8 (3.6%)	8 (3.6%)	3 (1.4%)	18 (8%)	43 (19.5%)
Disto- Buccal	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	6 (2.7%)	4 (2%)	5 (2.3%)	8 (3.6%)	24 (11%)
Disto- Lingual	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	1 (0.5%)	4 (2%)
Total	1 (0.5%)	2 (0.9%)	3 (1.4%)	7 (3%)	12 (5.5%)	42 (19%)	30 (13.5%)	40 (18%)	84 (38%)	221 (100%)
p	0.119 *

*Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05

Table 3. The relation between the presence of iatrogenic errors and case difficulty; N (%)

Errors Difficulty	Corono-Cervical perforation	Furcation perforation	Strip perforation	Lateral Root perforation	Apical perforation	Ledge	Fractured instrument	Overfilling	Underfilling	Total
Minimal Difficulty	1 (0.5%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	3 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	4 (2%)	2 (0.9%)	11 (5%)
Moderate Difficulty	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)	2 (0.9%)	5 (2.3%)	15 (6.7%)	5 (2.3%)	5 (2.3%)	20 (9%)	53 (24%)
High Difficulty	0 (0%)	2 (0.9%)	3 (1.4%)	5 (2.3%)	6 (2.7%)	24 (11%)	25 (11.3%)	31 (14%)	62 (28%)	157 (71%)
Total	1 (0.5%)	2 (0.9%)	3 (1.4%)	7 (3%)	12 (5.5%)	42 (19%)	30 (13.5%)	40 (18%)	84 (38%)	221 (100%)
p	0.003 *

*Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05