K S Lee1, S R Straja, O C Tuncay. 1. Institute for Regulatory Science, Columbia, MD, USA. str8teeth@iwon.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the perceived significance of root resorption in the dental community. STUDY DESIGN AND SAMPLE: Mail out survey questionnaire accompanied by morphed images of 10-50% root resorption. General practitioners, periodontists, prosthodontists and orthodontists were the participants. OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlations between 'significant' and 'detrimental to the longevity of the tooth'. These assessments were conducted within specialty groups and among. Also measured was the source of knowledge upon which practitioner assessments were based. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners were the most concerned about root resorption. Although most practitioners feel 50% root resorption is significant and detrimental to the longevity of the tooth, extraction followed by prosthetic replacement was not an option. No agreement among practitioners when orthodontic treatment should be terminated; the general practitioners were conservative suggesting termination after 35% root loss. History of trauma, genetic disposition and root morphology are the most cited predisposing factors. Lengthy treatment time concerns general practitioners more than the orthodontists. With the exception of orthodontists, dentists believe excessive force is detrimental to the root, but no one is able to define what excessive force is. Overall, dental school curricula overstate the causes of root resorption. Generally, dental professionals seem to base their opinions on myths and are largely inconsistent in their assessments.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the perceived significance of root resorption in the dental community. STUDY DESIGN AND SAMPLE: Mail out survey questionnaire accompanied by morphed images of 10-50% root resorption. General practitioners, periodontists, prosthodontists and orthodontists were the participants. OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlations between 'significant' and 'detrimental to the longevity of the tooth'. These assessments were conducted within specialty groups and among. Also measured was the source of knowledge upon which practitioner assessments were based. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners were the most concerned about root resorption. Although most practitioners feel 50% root resorption is significant and detrimental to the longevity of the tooth, extraction followed by prosthetic replacement was not an option. No agreement among practitioners when orthodontic treatment should be terminated; the general practitioners were conservative suggesting termination after 35% root loss. History of trauma, genetic disposition and root morphology are the most cited predisposing factors. Lengthy treatment time concerns general practitioners more than the orthodontists. With the exception of orthodontists, dentists believe excessive force is detrimental to the root, but no one is able to define what excessive force is. Overall, dental school curricula overstate the causes of root resorption. Generally, dental professionals seem to base their opinions on myths and are largely inconsistent in their assessments.