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.
Methods: A retrospective review of the dental records of patients seen by an endodontist in a private endodontic office from September 2013 to September 2016 was conducted by the same endodontist. Cases that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assigned as the subjects of this study, and data were extracted from their clinical and radiographic records. Patient's demographic features, pre-operative signs and symptoms, details of rendered clinical procedures, follow-up visits, clinical and radiographic findings were recorded. Seventeen teeth for which non-surgical exploratory re-treatment was initiated were included in this study. Calcium hydroxide-based intracanal medication was placed for 2-4 weeks. Obturation of the root canals was performed if the tooth showed improvement of clinical signs and symptoms. If not, a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was proposed to the patient to rule out VRF.
Results: After the non-surgical re-treatment was initiated, 13 teeth showed improvement of clinical symptoms and the re-treatment was therefore completed. The remaining 4 teeth presented with unresolved clinical presentations (deep pocket, presence of sinus tract and/or tender to percussion and palpation). Four teeth showed partial disappearance of intracanal medication where VRF was confirmed using CBCT in 3 teeth and with a conventional periapical (PA) radiograph in 1 tooth.
Conclusion: The disappearance of intracanal medication during non-surgical intervention was often associated with VRF. Thus, this feature may serve as an aid in diagnosing VRF.