Knowledge, awareness, and approaches of dentistry students about separated instruments in root canals: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: This survey aims to assess the understanding, viewpoints, and methods employed by undergraduate dental students in the fourth and fifth grades regarding broken endodontic instruments in root canal procedures. METHODS: A survey comprising 27 questions across three sections-demographic information, practical application, and knowledge-approach-awareness inquiries-was developed. It was distributed to 282 students either in person or via a link shared through WhatsApp groups using Google Forms. RESULTS: Out of the total 219 respondents (77.6%), 10.6% experienced instrument breakage once during their clinical internship, while 2.8% encountered it more than once. The majority (86.7%) did not face instrument fracture incidents. Among these occurrences, it was observed that endodontic instruments were most commonly separated in molars, accounting for 51.9%. Nearly half (48.1%) of the students noted instrument breakage during the initial attempt to reach the apical part of the canal, while 55.6% reported breakage during root canal cleaning and shaping. CONCLUSIONS: Most dental students opted to leave the separated instrument in the root canal and proceed with filling it. Enhancing students' understanding and awareness of this matter will help prevent potential complications and enable them to handle such situations appropriately when they arise.

The dark side of the animal experiments.

The use of animals in research has increasingly continued, although there are serious concerns about appropriate methodology, moral issues and translation to clinical practice. The aim of the present article is to review the insufficiency of statements in ethical approvals to obtain animal welfare in real life practices and to draw attention to the need for an additional evidence-based audit system. In many countries, local Animal Ethics Committees are established to ensure that animals are treated in accordance with 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine) principles. Although the ethical approval certificate which is taken before the start of research is considered as the proof of animal welfare, footages released from all over the world reveal the maltreatment. However, due to the scientific resource provided by animal models, it does not seem possible to expect animal experiments to be terminated in the near future. Addition of previously suggested welfare section to methods of study or including the ethical approval certificate does not seem to be sufficient practices to guarantee the animal welfare, since they are not based on audited evidence. The welfare certificate, in which the welfare is supervised by independent auditors, would serve as a proof of both the wellbeing of subjects and consequently the scientific reliability of data. Application of review and publication priority for the animal researches which have the welfare certificate in addition to the ethical approval would encourage the researchers to obtain this certificate. The achievement of worldwide consensus about content, requirements, and application methods of the welfare certificate should be in the scope of scientists in the near future to reach the more humane and more qualified animal experiments.