M Guivarc'h1, C Jeanneau2, T Giraud3, L Pommel4, I About2, A A Azim5, Frédéric Bukiet6. 1. Aix Marseille Univ, EFS/CNRS, ADES, Marseille, France; APHM, Hôpital Timone, Service d'Odontologie, 13005, Marseille, France. 2. Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Inst Movement Sci, Marseille, France. 3. Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Inst Movement Sci, Marseille, France; APHM, Hôpital Timone, Service d'Odontologie, Marseille, France. 4. Faculté d'odontologie de Marseille, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille, 27 Bd Jean-Moulin, 13385, Marseille, France. 5. Department of Periodontics & Endodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 6. Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Inst Movement Sci, Marseille, France; APHM, Hôpital Timone, Service d'Odontologie, Marseille, France. frederic.bukiet@univ-amu.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To gain insight on the current clinical usage of bioceramic root canal sealers (BRCS) by general dental practitioners (GDPs) and endodontic practitioners (EPs) and to determine if BRCS clinical application is in accordance with the best available evidence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online questionnaire of 18 questions addressing BRCS was proposed to 2335 dentists via a web-based educational forum. Participants were asked about socio-demographic data, clinical practice with BRCS, and their motivation for using BRCS. Statistical analysis (chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test) was applied, as appropriate, to assess the association between the variable categories (p value < 0.05). RESULTS: The response rate was 28.91%. Among respondents, 94.8% knew BRCS (EPs more than GDPs, p < 0.05) and 51.70% were using BRCS. The primary reason for using BRCS was their belief of its improved properties (87.7%). Among BRCS users, single-cone technique (SCT) was the most employed obturation method (63.3%) which was more applied by GDPs (p < 0.05); EPs utilized more of the thermoplasticized obturation techniques (p < 0.05). A proportion of 38.4% of BRCS users indicated the usage of SCT with BRCS regardless of the root canal anatomy (GDPs more than EPs p < 0.05) and 55.6% considered that BRCS may influence their ability to re-establish apical patency during retreatment (GDPs more than EPs p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights wide variation in the clinical use of BRCS which is not in accordance with the current literature. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This inconsistency among EPs and GDPs on BRCS clinical application requires further clarifications to better standardize their use and improve their future evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To gain insight on the current clinical usage of bioceramic root canal sealers (BRCS) by general dental practitioners (GDPs) and endodontic practitioners (EPs) and to determine if BRCS clinical application is in accordance with the best available evidence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online questionnaire of 18 questions addressing BRCS was proposed to 2335 dentists via a web-based educational forum. Participants were asked about socio-demographic data, clinical practice with BRCS, and their motivation for using BRCS. Statistical analysis (chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test) was applied, as appropriate, to assess the association between the variable categories (p value < 0.05). RESULTS: The response rate was 28.91%. Among respondents, 94.8% knew BRCS (EPs more than GDPs, p < 0.05) and 51.70% were using BRCS. The primary reason for using BRCS was their belief of its improved properties (87.7%). Among BRCS users, single-cone technique (SCT) was the most employed obturation method (63.3%) which was more applied by GDPs (p < 0.05); EPs utilized more of the thermoplasticized obturation techniques (p < 0.05). A proportion of 38.4% of BRCS users indicated the usage of SCT with BRCS regardless of the root canal anatomy (GDPs more than EPs p < 0.05) and 55.6% considered that BRCS may influence their ability to re-establish apical patency during retreatment (GDPs more than EPs p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights wide variation in the clinical use of BRCS which is not in accordance with the current literature. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This inconsistency among EPs and GDPs on BRCS clinical application requires further clarifications to better standardize their use and improve their future evaluation.