4.5 Article

An international survey on the use of calcium silicate-based sealers in non-surgical endodontic treatment

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 417-424

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02920-1

Keywords

Bioceramic root canal sealer; Calcium silicate-based sealer; Endodontics; Root canal filling; Single-cone technique

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To gain insight on the current clinical usage of bioceramic root canal sealers (BRCS) by general dental practitioners (GDPs) and endodontic practitioners (EPs) and to determine if BRCS clinical application is in accordance with the best available evidence. Material and methods An online questionnaire of 18 questions addressing BRCS was proposed to 2335 dentists via a web-based educational forum. Participants were asked about socio-demographic data, clinical practice with BRCS, and their motivation for using BRCS. Statistical analysis (chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test) was applied, as appropriate, to assess the association between the variable categories (p value < 0.05). Results The response rate was 28.91%. Among respondents, 94.8% knew BRCS (EPs more than GDPs, p < 0.05) and 51.70% were using BRCS. The primary reason for using BRCS was their belief of its improved properties (87.7%). Among BRCS users, single-cone technique (SCT) was the most employed obturation method (63.3%) which was more applied by GDPs (p < 0.05); EPs utilized more of the thermoplasticized obturation techniques (p < 0.05). A proportion of 38.4% of BRCS users indicated the usage of SCT with BRCS regardless of the root canal anatomy (GDPs more than EPs p < 0.05) and 55.6% considered that BRCS may influence their ability to re-establish apical patency during retreatment (GDPs more than EPs p < 0.05). Conclusions This study highlights wide variation in the clinical use of BRCS which is not in accordance with the current literature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available