Attitude and practice of regenerative endodontic procedures among endodontists and paediatric dentists: A multinational survey from 13 countries


Hatipoğlu F., Hatipoğlu Ö., Taha N., Lehmann A. P., Aldhelai T. A., Madfa A. A., ...Daha Fazla

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, cilt.33, sa.5, ss.521-534, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 33 Sayı: 5
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1111/ipd.13101
  • Dergi Adı: International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.521-534
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: dental health survey, endodontics, paediatric dentistry, regenerative endodontics
  • Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

Background: Regenerative endodontics (RET) refers to biologically based procedures that aim to restore damaged tooth structures and reinstate the pulp–dentine complex to its normal physiological state. Aim: The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes and practices of endodontists and paediatric dentists regarding RET. Design: A survey was conducted among endodontists and paediatric dentists from 13 countries. A number of factors were evaluated, including frequency of RET application, followed guidelines, disinfection techniques, intracanal medication type, scaffold type, preferred coronal seal material, and follow-up period. Results: Among the 1394 respondents, 853 (61.2%) and 541 (38.8%) were endodontists and paediatric dentists, respectively. Almost half (43%) of participants have not performed RET yet. The American Association of Endodontics guideline (47.3%) was selected as the primary source for the clinical protocol. The most frequently selected irrigant solution was 1.5%–3% NaOCl at the first (26.1%) and second (13.6%) sessions. A blood clot (68.7%) and MTA (61.9%) were the most frequently selected scaffold type and coronal barrier. Most participants preferred a 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion: According to this survey, deviations exist from current RET guidelines regarding all aspects evaluated. Standardizing clinical protocols and adhering to available guidelines would help to ensure more predictable outcomes.