Evaluation of the Factors and Treatment Options of Separated Endodontic Files Among Dentists and Undergraduate Students in Riyadh Area
Introduction: Separation of endodontic files during root canal treatment is a common multifactorial problem facing most of dental practitioners both dentists and students that has high impact on treatment and prognosis outcome. Aim: To compare the incidence, factors and treatment options of sep...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2016-03-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7353/16785_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(VSUAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf |
| Summary: | Introduction: Separation of endodontic files during root canal
treatment is a common multifactorial problem facing most of dental
practitioners both dentists and students that has high impact on
treatment and prognosis outcome.
Aim: To compare the incidence, factors and treatment options
of separated endodontic files among dentists and undergraduate
students in Riyadh area.
Materials and Methods: A survery of 35-questionnaire was
formulated and e-mailed to all 149 dentists of different dental
specialties who are working in different clinical centers in Riyadh
area and are attending the 26th Saudi Dental Society International
Dental Conference in addition to 130 undergraduate students in
different dental colleges in Riyadh. Overall, 118 participants of
dentists completed the survey, with response rate of 79% and the
same number of students with response rate of 90.7%.
Results: Total of 57.6% dentists’ faced separated files problem
during root canal preparation, while only 7.6% of students faced
this problem. 53% of separated endodontic files (SEF) were hand
files, 65% stainless steel files, 81% were small size files most
common sizes (#15-20) (p <0.0001). Causes of SEF were root
Canal anatomy, in 45%. 66% of SEF occurred in curved canals,
98% were in molars in mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals, (p
<0.0001). 44% of SEF were successfully bypassed, 53% were
successfully removed from coronal third of root canal, 42% of
SEF successfully removed using ultrasonics under visualization of
operating microscope. 73% of retained SEF cases showed good
prognosis, (p <0.0001).
Conclusion: SEF is a multifactorial clinical problem that must be
either removed, by passed to allow complete cleaning, shaping,
disinfection, obturation and effective coronal seal. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |