| Literature DB >> 32754514 |
Afra Hassan Elrashid1, Khalid Jamal Alderaa2, Hamad Abdulaziz Alissa2, Waad Hamad Almadhi3, Hadeel Salem Bawazir4, Sarah Saleh Alsougi4, Sulaiman Ali Alraffa2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Application of newer techniques in endodontics improves the prognosis and reduces the time to operate patients; hence, the present study was conducted to determine the characteristics of endodontic practice and to compare these characteristics between General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) and endodontists with regards to their years of experience in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Endodontic practice; general dental practitioners; perceived effectiveness
Year: 2020 PMID: 32754514 PMCID: PMC7380752 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_129_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Family Med Prim Care ISSN: 2249-4863
Demographic characteristics of study participants
| Variables | Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 153 | 59.1 |
| Female | 106 | 40.9 | |
| Type of practice | General dental practitioners | 242 | 93.4 |
| Endodontists | 17 | 6.6 | |
| Experience | 1-5 years | 115 | 44.6 |
| 6-9 years | 49 | 18.8 | |
| 10-13 years | 42 | 16.2 | |
| >13 years | 53 | 20.4 | |
| Total | 259 | 100 | |
Comparison of percentage of responses on the basis of type of practice
| Variables | GDPs | Endodontist | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolation method | Rubber dam | 35 | 76 | 0.004 |
| Cotton roll | 4 | 0 | ||
| Suction | 1 | 6 | ||
| Suction and cotton roll | 50 | 6 | ||
| Others | 14 | 12 | ||
| Magnification | None | 79 | 18 | <0.001 |
| Loupes | 19 | 35 | ||
| Microscopes | 0 | 19 | ||
| Others | 2 | 28 | ||
| Periapical test | Palpation | 5 | 0 | <0.001 |
| Percussion | 43 | 24 | ||
| Tooth sloth (biting) | 3 | 0 | ||
| None | 3 | 0 | ||
| Others | 46 | 76 | ||
| Prepare the canal (s) | Stainless steel hand file | 20 | 0 | <0.001 |
| Nickel-titanium hand file | 11 | 18 | ||
| Endosonic instrumentation | 2 | 0 | ||
| Rotary nickel-titanium files | 45 | 47 | ||
| Others | 22 | 35 | ||
| Adjunctive activator for irrigation | Yes | 16 | 59 | <0.001 |
| No | 84 | 41 | ||
Comparison of responses on the basis of experience
| Variables | 1-5 years | 6-9 Years | 10-13 Years | > 13 Years | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Root canal therapies per week | 0-5 teeth | 54 | 38 | 22 | 36 | 0.026 |
| 6-10 teeth | 22 | 39 | 39 | 36 | ||
| 11-15 teeth | 16 | 8 | 27 | 17 | ||
| 16-20 teeth | 3 | 8 | 5 | 8 | ||
| 21 or above | 5 | 12 | 7 | 4 | ||
| Isolation method | Rubber dam | 55 | 22 | 32 | 23 | 0.001 |
| Cotton roll | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Suction | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Suction and cotton roll | 26 | 71 | 56 | 62 | ||
| Others | 11 | 5 | 10 | 11 | ||
| Use of magnification | No | 77 | 76 | 80 | 66 | 0.008 |
| Loupes | 20 | 24 | 12 | 26 | ||
| Microscopes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | ||
| Others | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 | ||
| Periapical test | Palpation | 9 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0.016 |
| Percussion | 36 | 50 | 58 | 34 | ||
| Tooth sloth | 3 | 0 | 3 | 4 | ||
| None | 2 | 2 | 0 | 8 | ||
| Others | 50 | |||||
| Radiographs | Conventional | 23 | 41 | 49 | 53 | <0.001 |
| Digital | 71 | 55 | 41 | 28 | ||
| CBCT | 3 | 2 | 2 | 9 | ||
Correlation analysis between different variables
| Variables | Gender | Type of practice | Experience | Behavior | Perceived effectiveness | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | r | r | r | r | ||||||
| Gender | - | - | ||||||||
| Type of practice | -0.063 | 0.313 | - | - | ||||||
| Experience | -0.120 | 0.055 | 0.143 | 0.022 | - | - | ||||
| Behavior | 0.040 | 0.519 | 0.027 | 0.669 | -0.047 | 0.453 | - | - | ||
| Perceived effectiveness | 0.136 | 0.029 | 0.055 | 0.376 | 0.060 | 0.337 | 0.055 | 0.382 | - | - |