Post-endodontic treatment of incisors and premolars among dental practitioners in Saarland: an interactive Web-based survey

Restoration of Root Filled Teeth; Current Opinions and Techniques

Purpose:

To examine current decision-making preferences of Jordanian dentists when Restoring Root Filled Teeth (RFT).

Materials and Methods:

834 Jordanian general dentists, prosthodontists and endodontists were invited to participate in a validated online survey with a 62% participation rate. Respondents were invited to answer 24 questions about their preferences for techniques and materials they use to restore RFT. The questions aimed at exploring restorative strategies commonly employed by Jordanian dentists when managing root filled teeth with extensive loss of tooth structure.

Results:

A minority of dentists consider direct resin restoration as the sole restoration for RFT with extensive loss of tooth structure. Full coverage metal-ceramic and all-ceramic crowns are more popular than endocrowns when restoring RFT with indirect restoration. Fiber posts are the most popular type of posts, followed by prefabricated metal posts. Glass ionomer is the most preferred cement for luting metal posts, while conventional dual resin cement with separate etch and rinse bonding strategy is the most employed when bonding fiber posts. The majority of dentists tend not to pretreat fiber posts. Loss of post/core retention or fracture of coronal tooth structure are the two most common reasons observed by dentists when RFT fail.

Conclusion:

Use of post and core is still preferred over more conservative approaches when restoring RFT with extensive loss of coronal tooth structure. Longevity of restorations can be enhanced by training practicing dentists on evidence-based adhesive strategies.

Restorative preferences and choices of dentists and students for restoring endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review of survey studies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The best protocol to restore endodontically treated teeth is still unclear, with many factors to be considered, including the selection and necessity of a post, the type of coronal restoration, the amount of remaining coronal structure, and the type of luting agent.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the restorative preferences for endodontically treated teeth between dentists and dental students.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Survey studies, written in English, of dentists and dental students, which evaluated the use of intracanal posts and other restorative options for endodontically treated teeth, were selected. Searches were performed in the PubMed and SCOPUS databases without time restriction. Screening and data extraction were performed by 2 researchers independently. A standardized outline was used to extract the data (questions related to the theme and the response rate of each question on the survey), and the risk of bias was assessed. Descriptive analysis was performed of the collected information.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles were included. Most dentists who answered the surveys reported the time since graduation as 1 to 20 years (40%), and 44% were specialists. The most reported choices concerning the type of posts used were prefabricated posts (45.8%), cast metal posts (16.7%), and both posts (16.7%). The cast metal posts were cited more frequently in surveys published between 1994 and 2010, whereas prefabricated posts, both metal and glass fiber ones, were cited between 2006 and 2019. The preferred luting agent for intracanal posts was resin-based (47%). These choices seem to have been influenced by time and by the level of postgraduate training.

CONCLUSIONS

Restorative preferences related to posts have changed over time, from the use of cast posts to prefabricated ones or the use of both posts and seem to be influenced by experience and postgraduate training.

Effect of Repairing Endodontic Access Cavities on Survival of Single Crowns and Retainer Restorations

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aimed to analyze the effect of repairing endodontic access cavities with composite on the survival of single crowns and retainer restorations of fixed or removable dental prostheses.

METHODS

Dental records of patients attending a university dental clinic were retrospectively screened for single crowns and retainer restorations receiving endodontic treatment after crown placement. Survival (no further intervention) and failure (removal, loss or replacement of crown, replacement of access restoration, or recementation of restoration) of crowns and retainers with repaired endodontic access cavities were recorded. The mean annual failure rates were calculated, and the effect of individual-, tooth-, and restoration-related variables on survival was assessed by univariate log-rank tests and multivariate Cox regression analyses with shared frailty (P < .05).

RESULTS

One hundred eighty repaired crowns/retainers placed in 151 patients were included (4.5 ± 3.3 years follow-up). Survival after 2, 5, 7, and 10 years amounted to 82.7%, 71.5%, 67.3%, and 48.8% (mean annual failure rate = 9.0%, 6.5%, 5.5%, and 6.9%), respectively. Although tooth type, kind of restoration, endodontic irrigant, repair conditioning methods, and kind of composite affected survival in the univariate regression analyses, only the kind of restoration (single crown vs retainer restoration) remained significant in the multivariate Cox regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

Repairing endodontic access cavities with composite increases the longevity of single crowns and retainer restorations.

A survey of Australian prosthodontists: the use of posts in endodontically treated teeth

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to gain insight into common practises of Australian prosthodontists when placing a post in an endodontically treated tooth (ETT).

METHODS

A 17-question open- and closed-format questionnaire was sent to registered Australian prosthodontists. The response rate was 55% (N = 95).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents indicated the purpose of a post was to retain a core (N = 94, 99%). The decision to place a post is affected by the quantity of remaining tooth structure (N = 91, 96%) and the definitive restoration (N = 68, 72%). The ideal post length is neither a short nor long post with the most frequent response (N = 52, 34%) being 'as long as possible without disturbing the apical seal'. The apical seal requirements were defined as 4-5 mm of gutta-percha for 77% of respondents. The most preferred post type was a custom cast metal post (N = 85, 49%). The most popular luting cement was resin composite (N = 84, 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this survey do not provide a definitive guide for restoring an ETT. However, it illustrates how Australian prosthodontists address this clinical challenge. The multiple responses received for a number of questions suggest that the material and technique employed in the Australian context is influenced by the individual clinical case.