Cross-sectional study evaluates endo-periodontal lesion prevalence in a dental population, indicating links to periodontitis.
Background/Objectives: In 2018, a classification system for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions defined an endo-periodontal lesion (EPL) as a pathological communication between the endodontic and periodontal tissues of a given tooth. As the evidence to define the etiology, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment was considered limited, a cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate its prevalence in a population treated at the Periodontics Department of Faculty of Dentistry of University of Buenos Aires (FOUBA). The primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of EPL. The secondary objective was to identify potential risk indicators associated with their prevalence. Methods: Patients referred for first time to the Periodontics Department of FOUBA during April to June 2025 were consecutively selected. Clinical and radiographic examination was carried out. Categorical outcomes were described using proportions. The crude association between the prevalence of EPL and each of the recorded factors was determined by means of the chi-square test and a logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 182 participants (128 women and 54 men) with a mean age of 50.8 (standard deviation = 15.6) years were included. The prevalence of participants with EPL was 14.8%. The average was 1.7 teeth per participant with a minimum of 1 tooth and a maximum of 5 teeth. In total, 85.2% of participants with EPL had stage III–IV generalized periodontitis, grade B or C. The logistic regression analysis identified periodontitis stage III–IV (OR = 5.9; 95% Confidence interval [1.9: 18.9] (p = 0.003)) as a potential risk indicator for EPL. Conclusions: The prevalence of participants with EPL in a teaching hospital of the University of Buenos Aires was 14.8%. EPL was more frequently found in participants with periodontitis stage III–IV. Periodontitis stage III–IV was considered a potential risk indicator of EPL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caceres et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: