PubMed · 5259357
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Elfenbaum. 1969. The x-ray negative tooth.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5259357/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To identify techniques commonly used in the management of periradicular disease by general dental practitioners and to ascertain views on continuing professional education in endodontics. DESIGN: Data was collected via a postal questionnaire distributed to 617 general dental practitioners in Scotland (33% of practitioners registered with the Dental Practice Board). RESULTS: 417 (69%) questionnaires were completed and returned. Only 24.9% of respondents used rubber dam routinely. The majority of respondents used hand instruments for preparation with either sodium hypochlorite or local anaesthetic being used most frequently for irrigation. The mean time for treatment of a single rooted tooth was 71 minutes. The demand for continuing education courses was high with 340 and 197 respondents requesting endodontic and rubber dam courses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional methods for preparing the root canal using hand instruments were favoured by most dentists. The major disincentive to the use of rotary instruments and new techniques for obturating with thermally softened gutta-percha was expense. The importance of rubber dam isolation requires reiteration and more continuing education courses are required to update clinical skills.
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing the diagnosis and management of periradicular disease by general dental practitioners. DESIGN: The study was conducted in two stages. 1. Analysis of recent returns to the Scottish Dental Practice Board. 2. Data collection via a postal questionnaire distributed to 617 general dental practitioners in Scotland (33% of practitioners registered with the Dental Practice Board). RESULTS: 417 (69%) questionnaires were completed and returned. The majority of respondents undertook root canal treatment and the number of cases treated had increased in the last five years. The vast majority of the respondents (89.3%) were confident in their diagnosis of periradicular disease and 77.1% were confident of their treatment of the disease. A referral system for treatment was used by 31% of respondents of whom the majority used a specialist in a hospital. Over 50% of the respondents undertook surgical root canal treatment. Only 40% of respondents followed up their completed cases for longer than six months. Constraints on the provision of treatment included the time available and the low level of fees. CONCLUSIONS: Current arrangements for the treatment of periradicular disease in general dental practice are less than optimal. The fiscal arrangements for the provision of these treatments must be developed to encourage a high standard of treatment to be performed thereby maximising the likelihood of success. In addition, efforts to inform patients of the benefits of the treatment of periradicular disease should be increased.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.