Which is best, saving a tooth with endodontic root canal treatment or having a tooth extracted ...

Which is best, saving a tooth with root canal treatment or having a tooth extracted and then replaced with a dental implant?

Using dental implants to replace missing teeth has gained widespread acceptance in the dental community over the last decade or so. Those dental patients that are aware of the success that can be achieved with this technique might be inclined to ask: "If I have a tooth that is so damaged that it needs root canal treatment and a crown, why not just have it extracted and have a dental implant placed?"

This is a very logical question for a patient to have. It is also one that every treating dentist must consider when developing a treatment plan for their patient.

Which is the best approach, having an implant placed or going with root canal treatment?
While making a reasonable title for a paragraph, a question regarding which is a better solution, having a tooth "root canalled" or else having it extracted and a dental implant placed, really isn't so easily answered. Researchers have found that when cross referencing studies that might be used as sources to answer this query, the available studies typically have too many conflicting terms and conditions. Here are some of the types of difficulties that are encountered.

» What constitutes treatment success?
Should an endodontically treated tooth that has been lost because of the patient's lax home care and subsequent development of tooth decay really be considered to be a failed "root canalled" tooth? Should it be considered a success or failure if a tooth's root canal therapy does need retreatment but by doing so the tooth is saved from extraction?