A study of endodontic treatment carried out in dental practice within the UK

Abstract Jenkins SM, Hayes SJ, Dummer PMH. A study of endodontic treatment carried out in dental practice within the UK. International Endodontic Journal , 34 , 16-22, 2001. Aim The purpose of this study was to gather both qualitative and quantitative information on the nature of root canal treatment carried out by a group of dentists working within the United Kingdom. Methodology A two-part questionnaire was posted to 720 dentists who graduated from the Dental School, Cardiff, Wales, UK. The first part requested basic information regarding age, year of qualification, field of practice, etc. The second part consisted of 15 questions on endodontic practice and root canal treatment. Results The response rate was 41.5%. Two hundred and ninety-nine questionnaires contained useful information. The majority of practitioners did not use rubber dam during root canal treatment. The vast majority (89%) exposed a radiograph with an instrument of known length in situ to gauge the 'working length', a small number relied upon tactile sensation. Most practitioners used local anaesthetic solution as an irrigant during instrumentation of the root canal. A wide variety of instruments were used for root canal treatment; a stepback technique was preferred by almost half the practitioners. Antiseptic solution was preferred as an interappointment dressing. More than half of the respondents used laterally condensed gutta-percha to obturate root canals in anterior teeth but only one-third used the same technique in posterior teeth. Less than half the respondents exposed a radiograph to check the fit of the master point prior to obturation. Two-thirds of practitioners used a zinc oxide based material as their root canal sealer. Threequarters of the practitioners exposed a post obturation radiograph. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that although some dentists are using the techniques taught during their undergraduate careers, a large percentage now use techniques with no evidence of clinical effectiveness