Jonathan Y Lee1, Daniel D Kersten2, Pete Mines2, Thomas A Beltran3. 1. United States Army Endodontic Residency Program, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: jonathanlee.dmd@gmail.com. 2. United States Army Endodontic Residency Program, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Department of Clinical Investigation, Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The protocols that endodontists implement for regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are unknown. The aim of this study was to examine current REP protocols among practicing endodontists in the United States. METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to 4060 active members of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE). A total of 850 participants completed the survey, representing a 20.9% response rate. RESULTS: Responses indicated 60% reported having performed REPs; most performed 1 to 3 per year. The most commonly selected source (60.8%) for the clinical protocol was the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure." Time constraints were the most common reason why 92.4% of respondents did not report their REP cases to the AAE.org database; additionally, 15.5% were unaware of it. Almost half (49.8%) of the participants reported they would attempt an REP on a patient of any age. The most commonly used irrigants were >3% sodium hypochlorite at the first appointment and EDTA at the scaffold formation appointment. As the intracanal medicament, 52.2% used calcium hydroxide, whereas 23.5% used triple antibiotic paste. At the scaffold formation appointment, 77.1% used a local anesthetic without a vasoconstrictor, and 94.3% used a blood clot as the scaffold. Mineral trioxide aggregate was the coronal barrier most often selected. Considering factors most likely to encourage the use of REPs in the future, 79.8% reported the availability of good candidates followed by 40.1% who desired better evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this survey, REP protocols appear to be heterogeneous and do not strictly conform to the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure." Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: The protocols that endodontists implement for regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are unknown. The aim of this study was to examine current REP protocols among practicing endodontists in the United States. METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to 4060 active members of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE). A total of 850 participants completed the survey, representing a 20.9% response rate. RESULTS: Responses indicated 60% reported having performed REPs; most performed 1 to 3 per year. The most commonly selected source (60.8%) for the clinical protocol was the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure." Time constraints were the most common reason why 92.4% of respondents did not report their REP cases to the AAE.org database; additionally, 15.5% were unaware of it. Almost half (49.8%) of the participants reported they would attempt an REP on a patient of any age. The most commonly used irrigants were >3% sodium hypochlorite at the first appointment and EDTA at the scaffold formation appointment. As the intracanal medicament, 52.2% used calcium hydroxide, whereas 23.5% used triple antibiotic paste. At the scaffold formation appointment, 77.1% used a local anesthetic without a vasoconstrictor, and 94.3% used a blood clot as the scaffold. Mineral trioxide aggregate was the coronal barrier most often selected. Considering factors most likely to encourage the use of REPs in the future, 79.8% reported the availability of good candidates followed by 40.1% who desired better evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this survey, REP protocols appear to be heterogeneous and do not strictly conform to the "AAE Clinical Considerations for a Regenerative Procedure." Published by Elsevier Inc.