| Literature DB >> 34630830 |
Shakeerah Olaide Gbadebo1, Deborah Mojirade Ajayi2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: this study aimed at finding out current practice of endodontics amongst Nigerian dentists undergoing postgraduate training (also referred to as dental resident doctors) in different institutions across the nation.Entities:
Keywords: Endodontics; endodontic guidelines; postgraduate training; root canal treatment; rubber dam
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34630830 PMCID: PMC8486943 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2021.39.218.23205
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
demographic of participants
| Variable | N | % |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 57 | 63.3 |
| Female | 33 | 36.7 |
|
| ||
| < 1990 | 1 | 1.1 |
| 1991-2000 | 11 | 12.1 |
| 2001-2010 | 72 | 80.0 |
| >2010 | 6 | 6.7 |
|
| ||
| Government hospital | 78 | 86.7 |
| Private hospital | 10 | 11.1 |
| Others | 2 | 2.2 |
preoperative assessment, practice and frequency of RCT
| Variable | N | % |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Yes | 5 | 5.6 |
| No | 84 | 94.4 |
|
| ||
| Always | 28 | 311.1 |
| Often | 20 | 22.2 |
| Occasionally | 37 | 41.1 |
| Never | 5 | 5.6 |
|
| ||
| Single rooted teeth | 15 | 17.0 |
| Multi rooted teeth | 14 | 15.9 |
| Retreatment | 1 | 1.1 |
| Both | 58 | 65.9 |
|
| ||
| 0-5 | 70 | 80.5 |
| 6-10 | 13 | 14.9 |
| 11-15 | 2 | 2.3 |
| 16-20 | 1 | 1.1 |
| >20 | 1 | 1.1 |
|
| ||
| Always | 81 | 92.0 |
| Often | 6 | 6.8 |
| Never | 1 | 1.1 |
| Occasionally | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||
| Conventional/analogue | 78 | 86.7 |
| Digital | 5 | 5.6 |
| Others | 1 | 1.1 |
| No response | 6 | 6.7 |
Figure 1number of visits RCT was performed in various tooth types
intraoperative protocol: materials and methods in use for current endodontic practice
| Variable | N | % | Variable | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| Autoclave | 74 | 82.2 | Always | Always | 1.1 |
| Cold sterilization | 12 | 13.3 | often | 4 | 4.4 |
| Discard after single use | 1 | 1.1 | occasionally | 64 | 67.8 |
| No response | 3 | 3.3 | Never | 24 | 26.7 |
|
|
| ||||
| Single visit | 5 | 5.6 | Stainless steel | 58 | 69.0 |
| Multi-visit (2-3 visits) | 60 | 66.7 | Nickel titanium (NITI) files | 17 | 20.2 |
| Multi-visit (>3 visits) | 25 | 27.8 | Both | 9 | 10.7 |
|
|
| ||||
| Hand instrumentation | 85 | 95.5 | Always | 0 | 0 |
| Rotary | 3 | 3.4 | Often | 3 | 3.4 |
| Both | 1 | 1.1 | Occasionally | 22 | 25.3 |
| Never | 62 | 71.3 | |||
|
|
| ||||
| 1-2mm | 41 | 47.1 | Step back technique | 48 | 53.9 |
| 2-3mm | 1 | 1.1 | Crown down technique | 12 | 13.5 |
| 0.5mm | 33 | 37.9 | Conventional | 21 | 23.6 |
| As far as apex | 12 | 13.8 | Hybrid | 8 | 8.9 |
|
|
| ||||
| Always | 1 | 1.1 | Sodium hypochlorite chlorhexidine distilled water | 64. 31 | 81.1 3. 3 1.2 |
| Often | 5 | 5.6 | Hydrogen peroxide | 2 | 2.2 |
| Occasionally | 11 | 12.2 | Normal saline | 1 | 1.1 |
| Never | 73 | 81.1 | Sodium hypochlorite + normal saline | 9 | 10.1 |
| No Response | 10 | 11.1 | |||
|
|
| ||||
| ≤ 2% | 19 | 21.1 | Single use | 2 | 2.3 |
| 5% | 36 | 40 | Multiple use | 84 | 97.7 |
| Others | 3 | 3.3 | |||
| Don't know | 32 | 35.5 | |||
|
|
| ||||
| Always | 1 | 1.1 | Always | 2 | 2.3 |
| Often | 2 | 2.2 | Often | 8 | 9.2 |
| Occasionally | 42 | 47.7 | Occasionally | 25 | 28.7 |
| Never | 43 | 48.9 | Never | 52 | 59.8 |
|
|
| ||||
| Camphor quinine(CMCP) | 10 | 11.6 | Always | 41 | 46.6 |
| Formocresol | 4 | 4.7 | Often | 11 | 12.5 |
| Calcium Hydroxide | 68 | 79.1 | Occasionally | 26 | 29.5 |
| No medicament | 4 | 4.7 | Never | 10 | 11.4 |
|
|
| ||||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Calcium hydroxide based | 16 | 19.0 |
| 3 | 55 | 64.0 | Zinc oxide Based | 37 | 44.0 |
| 4 | 2 | 33.7 | Resin based | 29 | 34.5 |
| All of the above | 2 | 2.4 | |||
|
| |||||
| Calcium hydroxide based | 9 | 10 | |||
| Often | 16.7 | 16.7 | |||
| Occasionally | 55 | 61.1 | |||
| Never | 9 | 10 | |||
| No response | 5 | 5.6 |
Figure 2use of rubber dam during endodontics
Figure 3obturation techniques for endodontics employed by participants
coronal restoration on completion of RCT
| Variables | N | % |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Conventional zinc oxide eugenol | 69 | 80.2 |
| Cavit | 11 | 12.8 |
| Intermediate Restorative material | 1 | 1.2 |
| Glass ionomer cement | 2 | 2.3 |
| Others | 3 | 3.5 |
|
| ||
| Immediately post obturation | 33 | 39.3 |
| 24 hours post obturation | 4 | 4.8 |
| 1week post obturation | 44 | 52.4 |
| Not Specific | 3 | 3.6 |
|
| ||
| 1 week | 6 | 6.7 |
| 2 weeks | 21 | 23.3 |
| 3 weeks | 45 | 50.0 |
| No consideration for crown | 18 | 20.0 |
type of material for definitive coronal restoration
| Type of definitive coronal restoration | Anterior | Posterior | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | |
| Amalgam | 1 | 1.1 | 54 | 69.2 |
| Composite | 76 | 84.1 | 16 | 20.5 |
| GlassiIonomer cement(GIC) | 2 | 2.2 | 2 | 2.6 |
| Composite + GIC | 2 | 2.2 | 0 | 0 |
| Amalgam + composite | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7.5 |
| Not specific | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
resident dentists satisfaction with current endodontic practice
| Variable | Was your undergraduate endodontic training adequate | X2 | P Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||||
| Are you satisfied with your current endodontic practice | Yes | 21 | 19 | 3.86 | 0.05 |
| No | 16 | 34 | |||