http://www.endoexperience.com/documents/IrrigationTrendsAAE.PDF

Irrigation trends among American Association of Endodontists members: a web-based survey.

AIM The purpose of this study was to gather information on routine endodontic treatment performed by Flemish (Dutch-speaking Belgian) dentists. METHODOLOGY A postal questionnaire was sent to all the 4545 Dutch-speaking dentists registered in Belgium. The questionnaire was made up of 38 questions with multiple-choice answers. Results from 32 questions are presented, covering subjects, such as demographic and professional activity, root-canal preparation and instrumentation, emergency procedures and postoperative complications, choice of irrigants and disinfectants, and choice of obturation techniques. RESULTS A total of 1143 questionnaires (25.1%) were returned. Approximately 94% of the respondents were general practitioners. The results indicate that there are discrepancies between daily practice and academic teaching, especially regarding the use of rubber dam (only 3.4% report using it as a standard procedure) and the detection and preparation of a second mesiobuccal canal in maxillary first molars (70% never or seldom). Most GDPs reported that they completed treatment in two visits. The majority of practitioners used manual instruments manipulated with a filing technique; 38.9% of the respondents prepared root canals 1 mm short of the radiographic apex. The most popular emergency procedure for acute pain was pulpectomy (40.2%); 48% performed pulpectomy, prescribed analgesics and antibiotics for acute apical periodontitis. Approximately 35% reported complications after cases with chronic apical periodontitis were treated. The first-choice root-canal irrigant was sodium hypochlorite and approximately 65% used intracanal medication. The most popular obturation technique was cold lateral condensation (60%) with 29% using AH26 as a sealer. A high proportion of GDPs (80%) performed re-treatments. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study confirm that many Flemish general practitioners are not following quality guidelines for endodontic treatment.

A survey of endodontic practice amongst Flemish dentists.

Rubber dam has been available to the dental profession for over 140 years. During this time, the use of rubber dam has been perfected, universally taught and recommended by professional organizations. Unfortunately, its consistent use has been rejected by many in the profession. The literature suggests that rubber dam is not used routinely by dental practitioners for root canal treatment. Many unfounded reasons have been cited for its lack of use, including concerns over patient acceptance, time required for application, cost of equipment and materials, insufficient training, difficulty in use and low treatment fees. Failure to use rubber dam has been shown to influence the choice of root canal irrigant, has a negative impact on treatment outcome and places the patient at risk of swallowing or aspirating materials and instruments. Methods to popularize rubber dam amongst general practitioners are discussed.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01623.x

Rubber dam usage for endodontic treatment: a review.

Aim To determine the incidence of aspiration and ingestion of endodontic instruments in France during root canal treatment without using rubber dam.

Methodology  Data was provided by two insurance companies representing 24 651 French general dentists over 11 years. The type and number of accidents per year, the number of dental items involved and the percentage of occurrence of either aspiration or ingestion were reported. The incidence of accidental aspiration or ingestion was calculated. The need for hospitalization to remove the endodontic instruments and other dental items was reported and compared using chi square tests.

Results  One endodontic instrument was aspirated and 57 were ingested. Forty-three other dental items were aspirated and 409 were ingested. For the endodontic instruments: the incidence of aspiration was 0.001 per 100 000 root canal treatments and the incidence of ingestion was 0.12 per 100 000 root canal treatments. The aspirated endodontic instruments and dental items required statistically more frequent hospitalization than the ingested items (P < 0.0001). The endodontic instruments did not require more frequent hospitalization than other dental items when aspirated (ns) and when ingested (ns). No fatal outcome was reported.

Conclusion  The incidence of ingestion or aspiration of endodontic instruments was low even thought most general practitioners do not routinely use rubber dam. Use of rubber dam by general practitioners for endodontic procedures should be encouraged by stressing its advantages rather than the fear factor of accidents.

Accidental ingestion and aspiration of root canal instruments and other dental foreign bodies in a French population

Current trends in endodontic treatment by general dental practitioners: report of a United States national survey.

Aim

To evaluate factors which influence rubber dam use and irrigant selection in UK National Health Service (NHS) endodontics.



Methodology

A postal survey was conducted amongst two age cohorts of dentists, representing all of the 1970–73 (older) and 1990–93 (younger) graduates of two northern English dental schools (n = 643). Key and supplementary questions were posed on levels of rubber dam use, irrigant selection, and factors influencing practice in NHS endodontics. After manual checking, validated (dual) entry of responses was made to a flat ASCII data file before analysis with SPSS software. The threshold for statistical significance was set at the 95% probability level.



Results

Eighty-five per cent of the valid sample responded to the questionnaire. Regardless of age and qualifying school, less than one-fifth of dentists always or frequently used rubber dam, whilst 60% never used it. Qualifying school had a significant influence on rubber dam use, whilst age had a variable influence. Major disincentives to the use of rubber dam included the perception that patients do not like it, that the NHS fee was inadequate to justify its use, that it took too long to apply, and that dentists had received inadequate training. Frequent users of rubber dam were significantly less likely to cite these disincentives than nonusers. Overall, local anaesthetic solution was the most common endodontic irrigant. Irrigant choice was strongly linked to rubber dam use, and to graduation cohort. Seventy-one per cent of rubber dam users irrigated with sodium hypochlorite, compared with only 38% of nonusers. This pattern was reversed for local anaesthetic irrigation. Younger graduates were significantly more likely to irrigate with local anaesthetic solution than their older counterparts, and the younger graduates of one school showed a highly significant increase in the use of chlorhexidine.



Conclusions

1) The majority of UK Health Service dentists never use rubber dam isolation in endodontic treatment. 2) Qualifying school has a significant impact on rubber dam use, and irrigant selection. 3) Use of rubber dam has a significant association with irrigant choice in endodontics.

G. V. Seccombe

Papers

Use of rubber dam and irrigant selection in UK general dental practice.