S Aryanpour1, J P Van Nieuwenhuysen, W D'Hoore. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine and Stomatology, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.
Abstract
AIM: The objectives of the present study were to: (i) evaluate the consensus, if any, amongst dental schools, students and their instructors managing the same clinical cases, all of which involved endodontically treated teeth; and (ii) determine the predominant proposed treatment option. METHODOLOGY: Final year students, endodontic staff members and instructors of 10 European dental schools were surveyed as decision makers. Fourteen different radiographic cases of root canal treated teeth accompanied by a short clinical history were presented to them in a uniform format. For each case the decision makers were requested to: (i) choose only one out of nine treatment alternatives proposed, from 'no treatment' to 'extraction' via 'retreatment' and 'surgery' (ii) assess on two 5-point scales: the difficulty of making a decision, and the technical complexity of the retreatment procedure. RESULTS: The results indicate wide inter- and also intra-school disagreements in the clinical management of root canal treated teeth. Analysis of variance showed that the main source of variation was the 'school effect', explaining 1.8% (NS) to 18.6% (P < 0.0001) of the treatment variations. No other factor explained as much variance. Decision difficulty was moderately correlated to technical complexity (Pearsons' r ranging from 0.19 to 0.35, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: No clear consensus occurred amongst and within dental schools concerning the clinical management of the 14 cases. The lack of consensus amongst schools seems to be due mainly to chance or uncertainty, but can be partly explained by the 'school effect'.
AIM: The objectives of the present study were to: (i) evaluate the consensus, if any, amongst dental schools, students and their instructors managing the same clinical cases, all of which involved endodontically treated teeth; and (ii) determine the predominant proposed treatment option. METHODOLOGY: Final year students, endodontic staff members and instructors of 10 European dental schools were surveyed as decision makers. Fourteen different radiographic cases of root canal treated teeth accompanied by a short clinical history were presented to them in a uniform format. For each case the decision makers were requested to: (i) choose only one out of nine treatment alternatives proposed, from 'no treatment' to 'extraction' via 'retreatment' and 'surgery' (ii) assess on two 5-point scales: the difficulty of making a decision, and the technical complexity of the retreatment procedure. RESULTS: The results indicate wide inter- and also intra-school disagreements in the clinical management of root canal treated teeth. Analysis of variance showed that the main source of variation was the 'school effect', explaining 1.8% (NS) to 18.6% (P < 0.0001) of the treatment variations. No other factor explained as much variance. Decision difficulty was moderately correlated to technical complexity (Pearsons' r ranging from 0.19 to 0.35, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: No clear consensus occurred amongst and within dental schools concerning the clinical management of the 14 cases. The lack of consensus amongst schools seems to be due mainly to chance or uncertainty, but can be partly explained by the 'school effect'.