The accurate diagnosis of pulp and periapical conditions is paramount in endodontics, influencing treatment strategies and patient outcomes. However, a recent survey has illuminated a significant lack of uniformity among clinicians in their utilization of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) diagnostic terminology. This inconsistency, particularly in scenarios presenting diagnostic ambiguity, underscores potential shortcomings within the current diagnostic framework. This article delves into these discrepancies, highlighted by the survey results, and explores the complexities surrounding Aae Periapical Diagnosis, aiming to foster a clearer understanding and application of these critical diagnostic terms within the dental community.
Diagnostic Discrepancies in Pulp and Periapical Conditions: Survey Insights
The survey, designed to evaluate the practical application of the AAE consensus paper on diagnostic terminology, revealed notable variations in how clinicians interpret and apply these terms. This lack of consensus isn’t merely an academic concern; misdiagnosis can lead to inappropriate treatment interventions, potentially impacting patient care and carrying legal ramifications. The survey intentionally included ‘control conditions’ to gauge participant consistency, revealing an impressive 82% to 96% agreement in most straightforward cases. This high level of consistency in clear-cut scenarios validates the participants’ general understanding of AAE diagnostic principles. Interestingly, no significant differences emerged between specialized North American practitioners and international practitioners, suggesting that the challenges in aae periapical diagnosis are globally relevant.
One illustrative case, ‘Case 1’ in the survey, presented a tooth (tooth 21) unresponsive to cold testing but with a delayed response to electric pulp testing. This scenario resulted in a diagnostic split: 31% of participants diagnosed ‘pulp necrosis’, while a larger 56% opted for ‘normal pulp’. This divergence highlights the interpretive challenge. Diagnosing ‘pulp necrosis’ might lead clinicians to recommend endodontic treatment, considering the tooth non-vital. Conversely, a ‘normal pulp’ diagnosis, justified by the absence of a clear etiology and radiographic periapical pathology, could lead to a ‘no treatment’ approach. Both interpretations are clinically defensible based on pulp testing alone, yet the pulp can only be in one state – normal or necrotic. This ambiguity emphasizes the limitations of relying solely on sensibility tests for definitive aae periapical diagnosis. Similar diagnostic dilemmas can arise in cases of dental trauma or in patients who have undergone head and neck radiation, where nerve responses may be temporarily altered despite maintained pulp vitality. Furthermore, the phenomenon of ‘silent pulpitis’, where pulp deterioration occurs without pain, further complicates accurate pulpal assessments.
Image alt text: Radiographic view of tooth 21 in Case 1, demonstrating pulp space recession without periapical radiolucency, a key factor in diagnostic variability regarding pulp vitality according to AAE periapical diagnosis guidelines.
While advanced techniques like laser Doppler flowmetry and pulse oximetry offer more objective measures of pulp vitality, their widespread clinical adoption is limited by factors such as technical sensitivity, cost, and lack of familiarity. Adding to the diagnostic complexity, ‘Case 1’ also involved tooth 11, where access preparation had been attempted, but canals were not located. Within the AAE diagnostic framework, ‘Previously initiated’ is defined as a tooth having undergone partial endodontic therapy, specifically mentioning pulpotomy or pulpectomy. The current definition doesn’t explicitly include access preparation alone. This definitional gap likely contributed to the divided diagnoses for tooth 11, with 52% of participants diagnosing ‘pulp necrosis’ and 45% ‘Previously initiated’. This highlights how even subtle nuances in case presentation and terminology definition can impact aae periapical diagnosis.
Regenerative Endodontics and Diagnostic Terminology
‘Case 2’ in the survey further exposed diagnostic ambiguities, particularly in teeth that had undergone regenerative endodontic treatment (revascularization/revitalization). This relatively recent treatment modality, gaining prominence after the AAE consensus paper, introduces new challenges to traditional diagnostic categories. In ‘Case 2’, participant diagnoses varied widely for teeth with a history of regenerative procedures. Many based their diagnoses on pulp sensibility testing – ‘pulp necrosis’ (38.5%) for non-responsive teeth and ‘normal pulp’ (50%) for responsive teeth. However, a significant proportion also selected ‘previously treated’ (31%–39%) or ‘previously initiated’ (10.7%–16.9%).
Image alt text: Post-regenerative treatment radiograph from Case 2, illustrating the absence of root canal filling material, a factor influencing diagnostic term selection in AAE periapical diagnosis when considering ‘previously treated’ or ‘previously initiated’ categories.
The challenge lies in the fact that current AAE definitions can arguably justify multiple diagnostic terms in such cases. ‘Normal pulp’ could be considered if the tooth is asymptomatic and responsive to pulp testing. ‘Pulp necrosis’ may be chosen if the tooth is non-responsive. ‘Previously treated’ is also applicable as regenerative treatment is a definitive endodontic procedure, even without conventional root filling. ‘Previously initiated’ could also be argued, considering a pulpectomy is part of the revascularization protocol. While each term has some justification within current AAE guidelines, none accurately and comprehensively captures the unique pulp status following regenerative endodontic treatment, pointing to a need for more specific terminology within aae periapical diagnosis for this evolving field.
Apical Periodontitis in the Presence of Normal Pulp: A Diagnostic Paradox?
‘Case 3’ presented another intriguing diagnostic dilemma: can apical periodontitis, traditionally understood as a sequela of pulp disease, be diagnosed in conjunction with a normal healthy pulp? In this case, 82%–94% of participants diagnosed ‘normal pulp’ for teeth 11 and 21 due to normal pulp testing responses. However, periapical diagnoses varied between symptomatic and asymptomatic apical periodontitis, depending on clinical presentation.
Image alt text: Radiograph from Case 3 demonstrating periapical radiolucency despite clinical reports of normal pulp vitality, raising questions about the strict pulp-periapical disease sequence in AAE periapical diagnosis and the limitations of current terminology.
Logically, periapical disease is considered a consequence of pulp pathology. Yet, in ‘Case 3’, the presence of periapical radiolucency alongside a clinically normal pulp challenges this paradigm. Selecting ‘normal apical tissue’ in the presence of radiolucency is inaccurate. This scenario highlights a limitation in the current diagnostic terms to adequately represent cases where periapical disease may manifest seemingly independently of overt pulp disease, or perhaps reflects our incomplete understanding of the subtle early stages of pulpal involvement in aae periapical diagnosis.
Reversible vs. Irreversible Pulpitis: Subjectivity in Pain Duration
‘Case 4’ focused on reversible pulpitis, defined by the AAE as inflammation expected to resolve, allowing the pulp to return to normal. Sensitivity to cold is a key subjective sign, while radiographic caries is an objective finding. In ‘Case 4’, tooth 46 presented with radiographic caries but no clinical symptoms. Despite normal pulp sensibility tests, diagnoses were split: 73% ‘normal pulp’ and 23% ‘reversible pulpitis’. The presence of radiographic caries seemed to influence some clinicians towards a ‘reversible pulpitis’ diagnosis, even with normal pulp testing, illustrating varying interpretations of the criteria for aae periapical diagnosis.
Image alt text: Radiographic evidence of caries in tooth 46 from Case 4, a factor contributing to diagnostic variability between ‘normal pulp’ and ‘reversible pulpitis’ according to AAE periapical diagnosis criteria, particularly in the absence of clinical symptoms.
Tooth 44 in ‘Case 4’ further illustrated diagnostic subjectivity. The distinction between reversible and irreversible pulpitis hinged on lingering pain duration after thermal testing. A significant discrepancy emerged, with 27.3% diagnosing reversible and 70.5% irreversible pulpitis based solely on pain duration. This highlights the lack of clear consensus on what constitutes ‘lingering pain’ sufficient to categorize pulpitis as irreversible. Histological studies have shown that clinical signs and symptoms don’t always reliably correlate with the actual pulpal state, further emphasizing the inherent challenges in definitively differentiating between reversible and irreversible pulpitis based on subjective pain assessment in aae periapical diagnosis.
Conclusion: Towards Enhanced Clarity in AAE Periapical Diagnosis
This survey underscores the existing ambiguities and inconsistencies in the clinical application of AAE diagnostic terminology for pulp and periapical conditions. While the AAE consensus paper provides a valuable framework, the survey findings reveal areas needing refinement and clarification. Specifically, the diagnostic categories may not fully encompass the complexities introduced by regenerative endodontic procedures, and the relationship between pulp and periapical disease requires further nuanced understanding in diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, the subjective nature of pain assessment in differentiating reversible and irreversible pulpitis contributes to diagnostic variability.
Moving forward, there is a clear need for continued discussion and refinement of aae periapical diagnosis terminology. This includes considering the incorporation of more objective diagnostic tools, providing clearer definitions for ambiguous terms like ‘lingering pain’, and developing specific diagnostic categories for teeth undergoing regenerative treatments. Ultimately, enhancing the clarity and applicability of aae periapical diagnosis will contribute to more consistent and accurate diagnoses, leading to improved patient care in endodontics.
References
- Ahn, S., Lee, C., Lee, J., Song, J., & Kim, E. (2018a). Diagnostic accuracy of laser Doppler flowmetry for assessing pulp vitality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Endodontics, 44(5), 711-719.
- Ahn, S., Lee, C., Song, J., & Kim, E. (2018b). Pulse oximetry for assessing pulp vitality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Endodontics, 44(8), 1213-1220.
- Bastos, J. V., Marques da Silva, B., Nelson-Filho, P., da Silva, L. A., & Rossi, A. M. (2014). Pulp sensibility testing after traumatic dental injuries: a systematic review. Dental Traumatology, 30(3), 167-174.
- Dummer, P. M., Hicks, R., & Vertucci, F. J. (1980). Histologic demonstration of human pulp inflammation. Journal of Endodontics, 6(11), 752-757.
- Ghouth, N. G., Manton, D. J., & Messer, L. B. (2019). Pulp sensibility testing of traumatised teeth: a review of methods and recommendations for clinical practice. Australian Dental Journal, 64(1), 12-21.
- Glickman, G. N. (2009). AAE consensus conference on diagnostic terminology: background and perspectives. Journal of Endodontics, 35(12), 1619-1621.
- Glickman, G. N., Cohen, S., Simon, J. H., Williamson, A. E., Khan, A. A., Mickel, A. K., … & American Association of Endodontists. (2009). AAE consensus conference on diagnostic terminology: executive summary. Journal of Endodontics, 35(12), 1622-1629.
- Gupta, R., Webb, D. A., Craig, M., & Hunter, N. (2018). The effect of radiotherapy on dental pulp vitality: a systematic review. Oral Oncology, 86, 25-32.
- Kakehashi, S., Stanley, H. R., & Fitzgerald, R. J. (1965). The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, 20(3), 340-349.
- Mainkar, A., & Kim, S. G. (2018). Diagnostic accuracy of pulp sensibility tests: a systematic review. Journal of Endodontics, 44(4), 534-541.
- Michaelson, P. L., & Holland, G. R. (2002). The pulp-dentin organ: is it a silent participant in caries progression?. Journal of Endodontics, 28(2), 103-106.
- Ricucci, D., Loghin, S., Siqueira Jr, J. F., & Bergenholtz, G. (2014). Histological investigation of human apical periodontitis in teeth with vital pulp. Journal of Endodontics, 40(11), 1665-1672.
