NL Journal of Dentistry and Oral Sciences
(ISSN: 3049-1053)

Introduction

In recent years, dentistry has witnessed a significant paradigm shift: dental implants, once considered a last resort for edentulism, are now frequently proposed as a first-line solution even in cases where natural teeth could potentially be preserved [1]. The rapid advancement and predictability of implant therapy have undoubtedly transformed clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, this shift raises a critical question: in our enthusiasm for implants, are we inadvertently neglecting the enduring value of preserving natural dentition?

Tooth retention has long been a central tenet of restorative dentistry. The natural tooth anchored by the periodontal ligament offers proprioception, adaptability, and a biological connection that no artificial substitute can fully replicate [2]. Beyond function, many patients express a strong emotional and psychological attachment to their natural teeth. Retaining one’s dentition is not merely a matter of oral health, but of identity, dignity, and self-image [3].

Endodontics plays a crucial role in this preservation effort. With advancements in magnification, imaging, irrigation protocols, and biocompatible obturation materials, endodontic therapy today is more predictable and less invasive than ever before [4]. Studies show that modern root canal-treated teeth can achieve long-term success rates comparable to those of implants, provided there is proper case selection, restoration, and follow-up [5]. Yet despite this, teeth that are salvageable with root canal therapy are often deemed “hopeless” and extracted prematurely in favor of implants.

It is important to clarify that this is not a critique of implant dentistry. Implants have revolutionized the way we approach edentulism and have improved the quality of life for countless patients. The concern lies not with the therapy itself, but with its overuse or inappropriate indication. When clinical decisions are driven more by convenience, economics, or trends than by sound diagnosis and a commitment to conservation, we risk compromising the very principles that define responsible dental care [6].

As clinicians, we must resist the temptation to follow the path of least resistance. True comprehensive care involves assessing every case on its own merits. Can the tooth be predictably saved? Will the patient benefit from retaining their natural dentition in the long term? Is the indication for extraction based on clinical necessity or on expedience? These are the questions we must ask ourselves and our colleagues.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is key. Endodontists, restorative dentists, periodontists, and oral surgeons must work together to ensure that treatment plans reflect a balanced and ethical approach. For patients, the best outcomes are often achieved not through radical replacement, but through thoughtful restoration.

As we navigate this implant-driven era, it is essential to reaffirm our commitment to biological preservation. Saving a tooth is not merely a technical exercise, it is a statement of respect for the complexity and resilience of natural structures. In the words of Dr. Herbert Schilder, “The best implant is a natural tooth” [7].

Let us not forget the quiet triumph of saving what once seemed unsalvageable. Let us rekindle our appreciation for the art and science of endodontics. And above all, let us remember in the presence of options, preservation should always come before replacement.

Conclusion

As implant dentistry continues to evolve, it is imperative that clinicians uphold the foundational principles of conservation and patient-centered care. Natural teeth, with their biological advantages and emotional significance, deserve every effort toward preservation. Endodontic advancements now offer predictable, long-term outcomes that rival implants in many cases. Clinical decisions must therefore be grounded in sound diagnostics, ethical judgment, and interdisciplinary dialogue. In honoring the complexity of the natural tooth, we not only respect its form and function but reaffirm our commitment to thoughtful, responsible dentistry.

References

1. Avila G, Galindo-Moreno P, Soehren S, Misch CE, Morelli T, Wang HL. A novel decision-making process for tooth retention or extraction. J Periodontol. 2009;80(3):476-91.
2. Zitzmann NU, Krastl G. Endodontology and implantology Competing or complementary disciplines? Swiss Dent J.2009;119(4):342-55.
3. Petersen PE, Yamamoto T. Improving the oral health of older people: the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005;33(2):81-92.
4. European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: Consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J. 2006;39(12):921-30.
5. Iqbal MK, Kim S. A review of factors influencing treatment planning decisions of single-tooth implants versus preserving natural teeth with nonsurgical endodontic therapy. J Endod. 2008;34(5):519-29.
6. Horner K, Eaton KA, Harris RV. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in dentistry: a narrative review. Community Dent Health. 2020;37(1):1-7.
7. Siqueira JF Jr, Roças IN. Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures. J Endod. 2009;35(11):1291-301