Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 82
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 196-201

Effect of case diagnosis and professional training on endodontic irrigant selection


1 Department of Restorative Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 Division of Restorative Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 General Practitioner, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sumaya O Basudan
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box: 60169, Riyadh 11545
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_88_17

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate the type of endodontic irrigants used in cases with different pulpal diagnoses by general dental practitioners (GDPs) and specialists. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire on irrigant selection was designed and distributed to GDPs, endodontists, and advanced restorative specialists with advanced endodontic training in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Participants were asked to select the irrigant(s) they used in vital, necrotic, and retreatment cases and to select the irrigant they think is the best. Results: A total of 261 dentists responded: 65% were GDPs, 21% were endodontists, and 14% were restorative specialists. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was the most commonly used irrigant (65%–80%) followed by saline. Other materials such as local anesthetic solutions, chlorhexidine, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) were also used. Diagnosis of the case significantly affected the choice of irrigant. NaOCl was selected more in necrotic than in vital or retreatment cases. The endodontists used NaOCl and EDTA as an adjunct significantly more than GDPs, who significantly favored saline (P < 0.001). Choices of restorative specialists were better than GDPs but were not statistically significant than either groups. Conclusion: This survey shows that irrigant selection is affected by case diagnosis and specialty training.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed240    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded69    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal