Search

Introduction: Treatment decisions for a heavily restored endodontically treated tooth vary amongst clinicians owing to multitude of factors. This phenomenon not only often poses dilemmas to clinicians of different clinical backgrounds, but also exerts a degree of treatment difficulty to the treating clinician. Previous studies indicated that specialty training and clinical experience significantly impacted clinical decision‐making process. Materials and methods: Master of Science postgraduate students in endodontics, prosthodontics, periodontics, oral surgery and implantology participated in a questionnaire‐based cross‐sectional study. The dental specialties were further categorised into restorative and surgical dentistry. A multiple‐choice questionnaire with three clinical cases was distributed to the students. Data were analysed for trends using descriptive statistics. Results: There was a 44% response rate; the majority of respondents were from restorative dentistry specialties. Cases 1 and 2 were rated as moderate to high difficulty, and Case 3 was predominantly rated as high difficulty with procedure predictability being the main factor affecting their clinical decision‐making in three cases. Endodontic retreatment was selected as the preferred treatment in Cases 1 and 2 and periradicular surgery in Case 3. The students were fairly confident in managing Cases 1 and 2, but not in Case 3. Referral patterns were consistent in Cases 1 and 2 with endodontists being the first choice of referral except for Case 3 where 48% preferred to refer to oral surgeons and 35% choosing endodontists. Some indication of differences between specialties were noted throughout. Years in practice appeared to be related to the importance of predictability in Case 3 only. Conclusion: Considerable inter‐clinician variability was noted whereby specialty postgraduate training impacted on clinical decision‐making. Overall, procedural predictability, technical difficulty, risk of damage to the tooth and patient preference were the most highly ranked factors affecting clinical decision‐making. Evidence‐based treatment guidelines and dental curricula should be reviewed to enhance inter‐clinician agreement in clinical decision‐making, ultimately improving patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To assess and compare how UK general dental practitioners (GDPs) restore endodontically treated molars and what tooth-related factors they consider relevant to their management.Method An online cross-sectional vignette survey was sent out to UK dentists via email and the use of social media platforms. Three clinical cases were designed.Results In total, 394 participants completed the survey. GDPs showed a preference towards restoring the endodontically treated molars with indirect restorations, such as crowns and onlays. Material selection varied, with a notable inclination towards gold and lithium disilicate. This was influenced by factors such as the number of remaining tooth walls, thickness of walls and the presence of parafunction.Conclusion Clinicians generally agreed on whether to place a direct or indirect restoration but there was greater disagreement when deciding on the type of restoration and material. Further evidence and education are required to help UK dentists decide more objectively whether to place an onlay or a crown, what material to select and what prognostic factors are most pertinent to the case., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The article presents a profile of an orthodontic registrar Sameer Patel at the Eastman Dental Hospital in Great Britain. It states that Patel help ensure the best and evidence based treatment available for the patients. It highlights the interests of Patel in dental practice and to learn on orthodontic treatment provides to the patients with minimal biological cost.

A calendar of events related to endodontics in Great Britain from September 24, 2009 to October 9, 2010 is presented which includes the European Society of Endodontology Biennial Congress, Belgian Association for Endodontology and Traumatology (BAET) course and the 8th International Federation of Endodontic Associations (IFEA) World Endodontic Congress.

Introduction Intentional replantation (IR) may offer a solution for persistent periapical lesions associated with endodontically treated teeth in select cases. This case series demonstrates the use of IR as an alternative treatment approach to both orthograde and surgical endodontic retreatment. The indications, contraindications, benefits and risks of IR are discussed, and the clinical procedure is outlined.Setting Restorative Department, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, UK.Case reports Of the 13 cases presented, the follow-up period before discharge ranged from 3-28 months. Only one tooth which presented intra-operative challenges required extraction three months after IR due to post-operative mobility.Conclusion In select cases, IR may provide a simple, less invasive and cost-effective alternative to both endodontic retreatment and extraction alone following appropriate training.