KushalsArticle 170
KushalsArticle 170
KushalsArticle 170
net/publication/333641528
CITATIONS READS
0 22
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Rajiv T Khode on 06 June 2019.
Dental Science
Dr. Kushal Fuladi VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur- 440019
Dr. Pratima Shenoi VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur- 440019
Dr. Gautam Badole VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur- 440019
Dr. Rajiv Khode VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur- 440019
VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Digdoh Hills, Hingna Road, Nagpur- 440019
Dr. Purabi Edbor* *Corresponding Author
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Endodontics is always striving for predictable treatment outcomes with newer materials and endless innovations. Thus, we
conducted a study among the endodontists of Central India to assess the current protocols in their clinical practice.
Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to 120 endodontists with open and close ended questions. Results: 77% of them used cotton roll for isolation
whereas only 43% used rubber dam. 25% used microscopes for every case whereas 32% used it for special cases only. The common irritants
preferred by the respondents was sodium hypochlorite followed by normal saline. They also reported that 81% referrals were for retrieval of the
fractured instrument, 70% for calcified canals and 54% for resolution of large periapical lesions. Conclusions: Traditional protocol is followed and
contemporary endodontic practices are still not popular. Training workshops should be carried out for endodontists to get accustomed to newer
protocols.
KEYWORDS
Endodontist , Rubber dam , Microscope , Ultrasonics.
Aim of the study is to determine the current perspective of Isolation plays an important role in the dental treatment and it was seen
in the current study that the use of cotton roll was 77% , similar to the
use of suction tip i.e. 75% .
DISCUSSION:
This survey involved a range of respondents in terms of their clinical
experience and practice setup. In this survey , the vast majority of
respondents preferred to use digital radiographic technique for
diagnostic methods which was similar to the study undertaken by Lee
Figure 1: Use Of Rubber Dam By Endodontic Practitioners Of et al [2]. Anabtawi et al in 2014 concluded in his study that 74%
Central India. endodontics used rubber dam in every case and 44% of respondents
used it for special cases, whereas in our study 52% endodontics used
The introduction of microscopes in dentistry has shown great impact rubber dam for special cases and 30% used it for every case[4].
on the outcome of root canal treatment. The use of magnification by the
respondents reported in our study was 25% for every case whereas According to Kersten et al. the use of magnification was 52% in 1999
32% of respondents used microscope for special cases only. See table in America which increased to 90% in 2007 whereas in contrast in
no.2 India , the use of magnification was found to be lesser which was
probably because of lesser training of the operator on the microscope
[5] . In our study, the use of magnification was 35% in special cases and
28% for every case. In the present survey, it was observed that the
choice of irrigants was mainly sodium hypochlorite followed by
normal saline that is similar to the study conducted by Clarkson et al. in
Australia in 2003[6].
REFERENCES
1. Gupta R, Rai R.( 2013). The Adoption of New Endodontic Technology by Indian Dental
Practitioners: A Questionnaire Survey . Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research.
Nov, Vol-7(11): 2610-2614 .
2. Lee M, Winkler J, Hartwell G, et al.(2009). Current trends in endodontic practice:
emergency treatments and technological armamentarium. J Endod ;35:35–9.
3. Revathi M, Rao CVN, Lakshminarayanan L.(2001). Revolution in endodontic
instruments-A review. Endodontology.43–50.
4. Anabtawi MF, Gilbert GH, Bauer MR, et al.(2013). Rubber dam use during root canal
treat- ment: findings from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent
Assoc .144:179–86.
5. Kersten DD, Mines P, Sweet M.(2008). Use of the microscope in endodontics: results of
a questionnaire. J Endod 2008;34:804–7
6. Clarkson RM. Podlich HM, Savage NW. Moule AJ.(2003). A survey of sodium
hypochlorite use by general dental practitioners and endodontists in Australia. Aust Dent
J ; 48:20-6.
7. Madarati AA, Watts DC, Qualtrough AJ. (2008). Opinions and attitudes of endodontists
and general dental practitioners in the UK towards the intra-canal fracture of endodontic
instruments: part 2. Int Endod J;41:1079–87.
8. Ree MH, Timmerman MF, Wesselink PR.(2003). Factors influencing referral for
specialist endodontic treatment amongst a group of Dutch general practitioners. Int
Endod J;36:129–34.