Skip to content
Dr. Khalid AletaibiConservative Dentistry · Dubai

The question before the treatment

Can this tooth be saved?

Being told a tooth cannot be saved is one of the few things in dentistry that people repeat word for word years later. Sometimes it is correct. Often it is a judgement made quickly, about a tooth that has more left in it than the appointment allowed time to check. The comparison worth having is not root canal against extraction in the abstract, but what happens to this tooth, in this mouth, over the next ten years.

Call Dr. KhalidWhatsApp

We're here daily, 9am-9pmEnglish & ArabicJumeirah, Dubai

Quick answer

A tooth is saveable when enough sound tooth structure remains above the bone to hold a restoration, the root is not fractured, and the supporting tissues can be made healthy. Deep decay and severe pain are not by themselves reasons to remove a tooth: they are reasons to find out which of those three conditions is in question. A systematic review of tooth survival after non-surgical root canal treatment found pooled survival of 86% at two to three years, 93% at four to five years and 87% at eight to ten years, and identified the restoration placed afterwards as the strongest of the factors examined.[^1] Dr. Khalid Aletaibi examines, images, and gives the reason in writing, whichever way the answer goes.

The one finding that ends it

A vertical root fracture

Survival after root canal treatment

86% to 93% across two to ten years

Strongest factor afterwards

The restoration that seals it

Deep decay alone

Not a reason to remove a tooth

How Dr. Khalid helps

The examination is the work. A tooth that hurts at night, a tooth with a large old filling, and a tooth that aches on biting are three different problems, and telling them apart takes tests rather than an opinion: cold, percussion, a bite test, periodontal probing, and imaging read for the root rather than glanced at for the crown. Dr. Khalid Aletaibi carries out root canal treatment himself and does the restoration that follows it. Where the case calls for surgical endodontics or where the tooth genuinely has to come out, that part is done by the specialist he works with, and he keeps the plan for what replaces it.

Three separate questions, usually answered as one

Whether a tooth can be kept breaks into three findings that have nothing to do with each other. First, how much sound structure is left above the bone, because a restoration needs a margin to seal against and a wall to hold onto. Second, whether the root is intact, because a vertical fracture running down a root is the one finding that genuinely ends the discussion. Third, whether the supporting tissues can be made healthy, which is a periodontal question rather than an endodontic one.

A tooth fails the first test and passes the other two more often than people expect, and that combination is usually treatable. Answering all three as a single impression is how saveable teeth get removed.

What the survival numbers actually say

A systematic review of fourteen studies published between 1993 and 2007 pooled tooth survival after non-surgical root canal treatment at 86% over two to three years, 93% over four to five years, and 87% over eight to ten years. The middle figure is higher than the first because the studies contributing to each window differ, which is the reason the review reports a range of 86% to 93% rather than a single number.[1]

The same review ranked four conditions that improved survival, in descending order of influence: a crown restoration placed after treatment, the tooth having both mesial and distal contacts, the tooth not carrying a bridge or denture, and the tooth not being a molar.[1] Three of those four are decided after the endodontics, by the restorative plan. That is the practical point of the paper.

Removing less of the pulp than the textbook once required

The older rule was that once a pulp was diagnosed as irreversibly inflamed, all of it came out. That rule is being tested. A systematic review of coronal pulpotomy in mature carious teeth with signs and symptoms indicating irreversible pulpitis found average success of 97.4% clinically and 95.4% radiographically at twelve months, and 93.97% and 88.39% at thirty-six months, with the single comparative trial showing outcomes comparable to root canal treatment at twelve, twenty-four and sixty months.[3]

The review's own conclusion is worth repeating rather than trimming: the included studies were heterogeneous and carried a high risk of bias, and properly powered randomised trials are needed before practice changes on this evidence alone.[3] So it is examined for and offered where the diagnosis fits, and it is not presented as the usual answer.

Why the same tooth gets two different answers

Extraction and replacement is a shorter path than saving, and it is more predictable to plan because the variables are known in advance. Saving a tooth is longer, depends on findings that only appear once work has started, and asks more of the restoration afterwards. Both are legitimate treatments, and the difference between them is not skill but what each one asks of the clinician and of the patient. That is worth knowing when two practices give you different answers about the same tooth.

The way to settle it is not a second opinion delivered as another verdict, but a written comparison for that specific tooth: what remains, what the root looks like, what the restoration would be, and what happens if it is removed instead. Both answers can then be read side by side.

How the question is answered

  1. 1

    Find out what the pain is doing

    Cold, percussion and a bite test separate a pulp problem from a crack from a problem in the tissues around the root.

  2. 2

    Measure what is left

    How much sound structure sits above the bone decides whether a restoration has anything to hold onto.

  3. 3

    Read the images for the root

    Bone level, the shape of any lesion, previous treatment, and any sign of a fracture line running vertically.

  4. 4

    Write the comparison down

    What keeping it involves, what removing it involves, and what each leaves possible afterwards. Then the decision is yours.

Pooled tooth survival after non-surgical root canal treatment
At two to three years[1]86%
At four to five years[1]93%
At eight to ten years[1]87%

Pooled from fourteen longitudinal studies. The four to five year window draws on a different set of studies from the others, which is why it sits higher; the review reports the overall range as 86% to 93%.[^1]

The three paths, and when each one is the right call

The three paths, and when each one is the right call
What it involvesWhen it is the right call
Keeping the pulp aliveThe decayed tissue is removed selectively, the exposed or inflamed coronal pulp is treated, and the tooth is sealed. The root canal system is never entered.A mature tooth where the diagnosis and the bleeding from the pulp both fit, and where follow-up is realistic. Examined for first, offered where it applies.
Root canal treatmentThe pulp is removed, the canal system disinfected and sealed, and the access cavity closed with a restoration that carries the tooth from then on.The pulp is beyond keeping but the root is intact and enough structure remains for a restoration to seal against.
Removal and replacementThe tooth comes out and a separate sequence begins, with its own healing intervals, its own surgical stage and its own long-term maintenance.The root is fractured vertically, too little structure remains above the bone, or the supporting tissues cannot be brought back to health.

What to expect

In practice

  • Tests before a verdict: cold, percussion, biting, probing, and imaging read for the root
  • The three questions answered separately: how much tooth is left, is the root intact, are the tissues healthy
  • Vital pulp treatment considered before the whole pulp is removed, where the diagnosis allows it
  • The reason in writing, whichever way the answer goes
  • Nothing removed on the day you first ask about it, unless you are in pain that needs settling

You always get an honest opinion and a written plan before any treatment begins, with no pressure.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions

I was told the decay is too deep. Does that mean the tooth is finished?
Depth alone does not decide it. International consensus recommendations on carious tissue removal state that bacterially contaminated or demineralised tissue close to the pulp does not need to be removed, and that in deep cavitated lesions in teeth with a living pulp, preserving that pulp takes priority over maximising restoration longevity.[^4] What decides the tooth is whether sound structure remains at the margin to seal against, and whether the pulp is still healthy enough to keep. Both are examined rather than assumed from the size of the shadow on the X-ray.
Is it true that a root canal weakens the tooth?
What weakens the tooth is the structure removed to reach the canals, not the treatment itself, which is why the access cavity is kept as small as the anatomy allows. The same review that pooled survival figures found the four conditions most strongly associated with a tooth surviving afterwards, and a crown restoration placed after treatment came first among them, ahead of tooth type and everything else examined.[^1] The endodontics buys the tooth time; the restoration is what spends it well.
Why not just take it out and put an implant in?
It is a legitimate option and sometimes the right one, but the two paths are not interchangeable. Removing a tooth starts a separate sequence with its own healing intervals, its own surgical stage, and its own maintenance for the rest of your life, and the bone that held the tooth changes shape once the tooth is gone. Keeping a tooth that can be kept leaves every other option open; removing it closes the one that was already there. The comparison is worth making on paper, per tooth, rather than as a general preference.
Can the nerve be treated without removing all of it?
In selected cases, yes, and the evidence is more encouraging than it was. A systematic review of coronal pulpotomy in mature teeth with symptoms indicating irreversible pulpitis reported average success of 97.4% clinically and 95.4% radiographically at twelve months, falling to 93.97% and 88.39% at thirty-six months.[^3] The authors are explicit that the eight included studies were heterogeneous and at high risk of bias, so this is a real option to examine for, not a claim that the nerve can usually be kept. Case selection decides it.
The tooth was root treated years ago and hurts again. Is it lost?
Not necessarily, and the first job is to find out which of several things is happening: a canal that was never located, a leaking restoration that let bacteria back in, a vertical root fracture, or a problem in the neighbouring tooth being felt in this one. Only one of those is untreatable. The pooled success figures for primary root canal treatment ranged from 68% to 85% under strict radiographic criteria across sixty-three studies, which means a meaningful minority of teeth need a second look rather than a removal.[^2] What that second look involves is set out on root canal retreatment.

Speak to us

Would you prefer we call you?

Leave your name and number and Dr. Khalid's team will call you back to answer your questions and find a time that suits you.

+971 55 764 3300WhatsApp

Speak with Dr. Khalid directly

Call or message. We're here daily, 9am to 9pm.

+971 55 764 3300WhatsApp